W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > March 2004

Re: WSDL Import/Include Locations

From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:41:57 -0500
Message-ID: <030a01c40aa4$10f480b0$7b00a8c0@AURORA>
To: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

> I guess my note was unclear since I intended it to show that the processor
> could keep on going even if the first import failed. In fact, both imports
> could fail and the processor could still succeed if the document didn't
> actually refer to any component in the imported namespace.

+1 :)

--G

> Arthur Ryman,
> Rational Desktop Tools Development
>
> phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
> assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
> fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
> mobile: +1-416-939-5063
> intranet: http://w3.torolab.ibm.com/DEAB/
>
>
>
> "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> 03/14/2004 12:08 PM
>
> To
> <ygoland@bea.com>, Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
> cc
> "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, <paul.downey@bt.com>,
> <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, <www-ws-desc-request@w3.org>
> Subject
> Re: WSDL Import/Include Locations
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Arthur:
>
> I think you're making some assumptions about the processor's behavior
> which
> we explicitly are not going to specify, IIRC.
>
> In particular, we make no requirement for a "fast fail" with import -
> therefore a processor has a choice whether to resolve imported namespaces
> when it first encounters the import (your assumption) or on an "as-needed"
> basis when resolving component references later in the document.  This
> means
> that if a processor chooses to do "read-as-required" it will probably only
> read the first available import of a given namespace, and then have no
> need
> to read any redundant ones unless there are references to components not
> defined in the first one.  Hence, the processing time cost is only for
> certain architectures, and not a given for all processors.
>
> --Glen
>
> > The WSDL processor will still try to load each URL because the two
> > documents could contain different definitions in the f:00 namespace.
> > However, this still provides some degree of failover in the case the
> > documents have the same contents.
> >
> > When the processor sees the first <import> it adds the f:oo namespace to
> > the set of imported namespaces so that definitions in the current
> document
> > can legally refer to any components in the f:oo namespace.
> > The processor then ties to load fileA, which may or may not work. If it
> > works, the components in fileA are added to the set of known components.
> > Similarly for fileB. If both fileA and fileB are reachable and have the
> > same content then the only downside is the extra processing time.
> >
> > So if you want failover, you can have it, but you pay a price in
> > processing time.
> >
> > Arthur Ryman,
> > Rational Desktop Tools Development
> >
> > phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
> > assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
> > fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
> > mobile: +1-416-939-5063
> > intranet: http://w3.torolab.ibm.com/DEAB/
> >
> > www-ws-desc-request@w3.org wrote on 03/12/2004 02:52:16 PM:
> >
> > > This then brings up another scenario that I'm not even sure is legal.
> > > Imagine I have a WSDL namespace FOO and two files, FileA and FileB
> that
> > > both define components in namespace FOO. The two files do not define
> any
> >
> > > common components and the two files do not include each other. In
> other
> > > words, each file is completely stand alone. In that case if a WSDL for
> > > namespace BAR should have:
> > > <import namespace="f:oo" location="http://example.com/fileA"/>
> > > <import namespace="f:oo" location="http://example.com/fileB"/>
> > >
> > > And if the WSDL should optimize by only successfully downloading one
> of
> > > the two links then components needed by WSDL BAR would not be
> > downloaded.
> > >
> > > This scenario presumes however that it is legal to have two completely
> > > independent files defining non-overlapping components in the same
> > > namespace that do not reference each other. Is that legal?
> > >
> > >    Thanks,
> > >
> > >       Yaron
> > >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 15 March 2004 10:42:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:30 GMT