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

Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150

From: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:39:08 -0800
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>, Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>, WS Description List <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-id: <4061D5CC.7070000@sun.com>

But then you get back to the pitfall I mentioned earlier, i.e.
that some bindings will only support one element, making an
application that tried to pass more than one element inadvertently
binding-specific.

So if we handle this case at all (we could call it (5)), we should
do so using extensibility.

Roberto


Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> I'd be ok with saying element="#any" means any number of
> any elements. That has a natural binding in the SOAP case
> to "stuff it inside <Body>."
> 
> Then we can indeed describe any SOAP message.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
> To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>; "Tom Jordahl"
> <tomj@macromedia.com>
> Cc: "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 5:53 AM
> Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
> 
> 
> 
>>Jacek,
>>
>>It seems odd ( to me at least ) that WSDL not allow me to describe
>>messages that are clearly OK per the SOAP spec.
>>
>>Gudge
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
>>Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
>>Sent: 23 March 2004 06:20
>>To: Tom Jordahl
>>Cc: 'WS Description List'
>>Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
>>
>>
>>Tom, I originally meant the issue 146 as really allowing anything in the
>>message, but I will have no problem with constraining that to "any
>>single element", it suits the usecase I have in mind here - a
>>content-based router endpoint that receives any message.
>>
>>This way the spec will be clearer and more consistent and the
>>restriction to a single element in SOAP Body doesn't seem too bad; noone
>>knows how to handle multiple elements there anyway. 8-)
>>
>>                   Jacek Kopecky
>>
>>                   Systinet Corporation
>>                   http://www.systinet.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 23:07, Tom Jordahl wrote:
>>
>>>I actually never believed we were discussing (4), I had always assumed
>>
>>(3).
>>
>>>I am also against the idea that you can get away with sticking
>>
>>*anything* in
>>
>>>to the message.  Now I understand why Umit is so worked up. :-)
>>>
>>>I propose we clarify the meaning of "#any" to be explicit that we are
>>>specifying "any element", not "any stuff you want".
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Tom Jordahl
>>>Macromedia Server Development
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Roberto Chinnici [mailto:Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM]
>>>Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 4:36 PM
>>>To: Arthur Ryman
>>>Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana; Martin Gudgin; Tom Jordahl; WS Description
>>
>>List;
>>
>>>www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>>>Subject: Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
>>>
>>>I find the current syntax nice and readble in three of the four cases:
>>>
>>>   1)  element="myns:Foo"
>>>   2)  element="#none"
>>>   3)  element="#any" (where "#any" means "any element")
>>>
>>>It's the fourth case, i.e.
>>>   4)  element="#any" (where "#any" means "anything, any kind of
>>
>>content")
>>
>>>that is problematic.
>>>
>>>I'm actually having second thoughts on conflating (3) and (4).
>>>
>>>I think that Umit has a point when she says that by adopting (4) we've
>>>moved away from an element-based content model representation.
>>>
>>>Moreover, given that some bindings might have restrictions on the
>>>allowable payloads for a message, it seems important to distinguish
>>>between (3) and (4). Otherwise an application written to the abstract
>>>layer of WSDL will feel authorized, upon encountering a message
>>>definition which specified element="#any", to pass arbitrary content
>>>around, including content of a kind that will be systematically
>>
>>rejected
>>
>>>by the binding in use. Then we'd fall back again in the trap of
>>
>>writing
>>
>>>applications to a specific binding rather than to the abstract
>>
>>interface.
>>
>>>Roberto
>>>
>>>
>>>Arthur Ryman wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sanjiva,
>>>>
>>>>The attribute @element formerly refered to the QName of an element
>>>>(GED). However, now it may not refer to an element. In fact, the
>>
>>message
>>
>>>>content might be a simple type, or anything else, including nothing.
>>
>>So
>>
>>>>it is a minor misnomer to call the attribute @element. However, most
>>
>>of
>>
>>>>the time it will refer to an element. Logically, the attribute
>>
>>describes
>>
>>>>the message content, which is often, but not always, an element.
>>>>
>>>>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/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>*"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>*
>>>>Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>>>>
>>>>03/16/2004 10:02 PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>To
>>>>"Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Tom Jordahl"
>>>><tomj@macromedia.com>, Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
>>>>cc
>>>>"WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
>>>>Subject
>>>>Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm confused .. I thought we're talking about special values to
>>>>assign to the operation/(input|output)/@element attribute to
>>>>indicate any content (#any) or no content (#empty).
>>>>
>>>>What does this have to do with changing the name of the attribute?
>>>>
>>>>Sanjiva.
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
>>>>To: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>; "Arthur Ryman"
>>
>><ryman@ca.ibm.com>
>>
>>>>Cc: "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
>>>>Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 1:43 AM
>>>>Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Have you implemented it already? ;-)
>>>>
>>>>Gudge
>>>>
>>>>P.S. I've always thought it mildly amusing to have an attribute
>>
>>whose
>>
>>>>name is element ( or vice versa ) ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>________________________________
>>>>
>>>>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>>>>[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tom Jordahl
>>>>Sent: 16 March 2004 11:01
>>>>To: 'Arthur Ryman'
>>>>Cc: 'WS Description List'
>>>>Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>We just changed the name of this attribute to "element".
>>>>
>>>>-1 to changing it AGAIN.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Tom Jordahl
>>>>Macromedia Server Development
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com]
>>>>Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 1:05 PM
>>>>To: Tom Jordahl
>>>>Cc: 'Jonathan Marsh'; 'WS Description List';
>>>>www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>>>>Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Correction to my note:
>>>>
>>>>s/elementReference/element/
>>>>
>>>>Same comment applies. It's not an element anymore.
>>>>
>>>>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/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>
>>>>Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>>>>
>>>>03/16/2004 09:30 AM
>>>>
>>>>To
>>>>
>>>>"'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "'WS Description List'"
>>>><www-ws-desc@w3.org>
>>>>
>>>>cc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Subject
>>>>
>>>>RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Jonathan,
>>>>
>>>>You meant to say "elementReference is the name of a type so it
>>>>would NOT appear in the syntax"
>>>>
>>>>Right?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Tom Jordahl
>>>>Macromedia Server Development
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>>>>[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
>>>>Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 4:48 PM
>>>>To: WS Description List
>>>>Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
>>>>
>>>>elementReference is the name of a type so it would appear in the
>>>>syntax.  I like messageBody better too.  Or I suppose we could just
>>
>>get
>>
>>>>rid of the reference altogether, right?
>>>>
>>>><xs:attribute name="element" >
>>>>      <xs:simpleType>
>>>>              <xs:union memberTypes="xs:QName">
>>>>                      <xs:simpleType>
>>>>                              <xs:restriction base="xs:token">
>>>>                                      <xs:enumeration
>>>>value="#any" />
>>>>                                      <xs:enumeration
>>>>value="#empty" />
>>>>                              </xs:restriction>
>>>>                      </xs:simpleType>
>>>>              </xs:union>
>>>>      </xs:simpleType>
>>>></xs:attribute>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com]
>>>>Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 12:58 PM
>>>>To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
>>>>Cc: Jacek Kopecky; Jonathan Marsh; WS Description List;
>>>>www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>>>>Subject: Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sanjiva,
>>>>
>>>>The XML Schema looks fine except for a couple of minor errors.
>>>>Here's a corrected version:
>>>>
>>>>      <xs:attribute name="element" type="elementReference" />
>>>>
>>>>      <xs:simpleType name="elementReference">
>>>>              <xs:union memberTypes="xs:QName">
>>>>                      <xs:simpleType>
>>>>                              <xs:restriction base="xs:token">
>>>>                                      <xs:enumeration
>>>>value="#any" />
>>>>                                      <xs:enumeration
>>>>value="#empty" />
>>>>                              </xs:restriction>
>>>>                      </xs:simpleType>
>>>>              </xs:union>
>>>>      </xs:simpleType>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>However, I dislike the name of the attribute, elementReference,
>>>>since the whole point of introducing it was to allow the case where
>>>>there is no element reference. How about @messageBody or
>>
>>@bodyContent
>>
>>>>instead?
>>>>
>>>>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/
>>>>
>>>>"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
>>>>Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>>>>
>>>>03/11/2004 10:50 PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>To
>>>>
>>>>"Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>, "Jonathan Marsh"
>>>><jmarsh@microsoft.com>
>>>>
>>>>cc
>>>>
>>>>"WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
>>>>
>>>>Subject
>>>>
>>>>Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Looks good to me too .. however I'll let Arthur indicate an IBM
>>>>position as I can barely spell schiema let alone make value
>>>>judgements about the goodness of using unions.
>>>>
>>>>Sanjiva.
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
>>>>To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
>>>>Cc: "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
>>>>Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 8:58 PM
>>>>Subject: Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > I applaud the elegance of this proposal. 8-)
>>>> > I hope it will be accepted.
>>>> >
>>>> > Jacek
>>>> >
>>>> > On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 18:55, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
>>>> > > Issues 146 [.1] and 150 [.2] were inadvertently left off the
>>>>FTF agenda.
>>>> > > Sorry my bad.  Here's a simple proposal for addressing these
>>>>issues,
>>>> > > assuming we find merit in adding this functionality.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Issue 146 Should WSDL be able to describe an operation with
>>>>*anything*
>>>> > > in the message? [.1]
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Issue 150 Indicating empty bodies [.2]
>>>> > >
>>>> > > When using XML SchemaS, The element attribute points to a
>>>>QName of a
>>>> > > GED, preventing either empty bodies, or unconstrained
>>>>content.  Special
>>>> > > values of the element attribute could indicate these
>>>>conditions.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Status quo:
>>>> > >   <xs:attribute name="element" type="xs:QName"
>>>>use="optional" />
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Proposal:
>>>> > >   <xs:attribute name="element" type="elementReference"
>>>>use="optional" />
>>>> > >
>>>> > >   <xs:simpleType name="elementReference">
>>>> > >     <xs:union>
>>>> > >       <xs:simpleType memberTypes="xs:QName">
>>>> > >         <xs:restriction base="xs:token">
>>>> > >           <xs:enumeration value="#any"/>
>>>> > >           <xs:enumeration value="#empty"/>
>>>> > >         </xs:restriction>
>>>> > >       </xs:simpleType>
>>>> > >     </xs:union>
>>>> > >   </xs:simpleType>
>>>> > >
>>>> > > (I hope I have got that syntax right.  Should be enough to
>>>>spark
>>>> > > discussion anyway...)
>>>> > >
>>>> > > [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x146
>>>> > > [.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x150
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2004 16:48:47 GMT

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