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

RE: WSDL 1.1 to WSDL 2.0 mapping

From: Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:09:03 -0500
Message-ID: <CB1FF0A474AEA84EA0206D5B05F6A4CB0709066F@S1001EXM02.macromedia.com>
To: "'www-ws-desc@w3.org'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Cc: "'paul.downey@bt.com'" <paul.downey@bt.com>

+1

I think the WSDL 1.1 to 2.0 migration information should be content that is
found in the primer.

I think if we want people to understand the changes we have made (for the
better) we will need to communicate how users will move their WSDL.  If we
do not, we may threaten the adoption of WSDL 2.0.

--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of paul.downey@bt.com
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 2:41 PM
To: ryman@ca.ibm.com
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: WSDL 1.1 to WSDL 2.0 mapping

Hmm ..thanks!
 
I guess it won't be a good fit going WSDL 2.0 to 1.1, but then documenting
what's 
different is going to be very useful info. 
 
Our biggest concern is in migrating our existing services, WSDL 1.1 to 2.0
and i'm 
prepared to accept that might not be a good fit either - you mention SOAP
encoding 
and i immediately thought of operator overloading and i guess there are
going to be 
a metric tonne of other issues.
 
I don't want to bog the WG with a load more to think about, but given this
is something
i'm sure i'm not alone in having to think about, I'd ideally like the
backing and support 
of this WG.
 
This might provide a good validation for our spec as well as providing a
good source 
of lots of existing real-world test cases!
 
Paul

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com] 
	Sent: Mon 22/03/2004 18:51 
	To: Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C 
	Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
	Subject: Re: WSDL 1.1 to WSDL 2.0 mapping
	
	

	Paul, 
	
	There are things in WSDL 2.0 that cannot be expressed in WSDL 1.1,
e.g. interface inheritance. However, it is probably feasible to imbed WSDL
1.1 into WSDL 2.0, although you may have to invent some extensions (e.g. for
SOAP encoding). 
	
	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/ 
	
	
	
<paul.downey@bt.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 

03/22/2004 11:23 AM 

To
<www-ws-desc@w3.org> 
cc
Subject
WSDL 1.1 to WSDL 2.0 mapping	

		




	
	one of the more difficult questions i'm being asked at the moment
	is how we will migrate from our WSDL 1.1 documents into WSDL 2.0
	when it arrives.
	
	This task would be vastly simplified if there was a standard mapping

	between the two languages, with an indication of which WSDL 1.1
features
	cannot be expressed in WSDL 1.1 and vice-versa.
	
	Given we now have a nice component model for WSDL 2.0, is it
feasible
	to provided WSDL 1.1 serialisation and deserialisation for WSDL 2.0
?
	If so, could this be written up as a W3C note under this WG ?
	
	Paul
	
	-- 
	Paul Sumner Downey
	Web Services Integration
	BT Exact
	
	
	
	
	
Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 17:09:43 GMT

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