- From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:38:38 -0400
- To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Matt Long" <mlong@mvsquared.net>, "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
+1, then - perhaps I misunderstood what Matt was saying in his example
that you +1'ed before. :)
Thanks,
--G
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:mgudgin@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 1:59 PM
> To: Glen Daniels; Matt Long; David Booth
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Contradictions regarding transitivity of wsdl:import
>
> No, I'm saying the exact opposite. This is encapsulation. A imports B.
> That's all A needs to do in order to use the stuff in B. A
> doesn't need
> to know that B imports C.
>
> Gudge
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glen Daniels [mailto:gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 10:33 AM
> To: Martin Gudgin; Matt Long; David Booth
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Contradictions regarding transitivity of wsdl:import
>
>
> Hi Gudge, all:
>
> Are you saying that if I extend an interface "I" in namespace "foo" it
> isn't good enough to import "foo", but I also MUST import any
> namespaces
> used by components inside "I"? In other words, the child WSDL below
> would NOT be legal without <import namespace="http://NSGrandparent"/>?
>
> WSDL for "http://NSChild":
> ---------
> <import namespace="http://NSParent"/>
> <interface name="child" extends="p:parent"
> xmlns:p="http://NSParent">
> ...
> </interface>
> ---------
>
>
> WSDL for "http://NSParent":
> ---------
> <import namespace="http://NSGrandparent"/>
> <interface name="parent" extends="g:grandparent"
> xmlns:g="http://NSGrandparent">
> ...
> </interface>
> ---------
>
> If so this seems a bit annoying. Does schema work this way?
>
> --Glen
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Martin Gudgin
> > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 1:15 PM
> > To: Matt Long; David Booth
> > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Contradictions regarding transitivity of wsdl:import
> >
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Gudge
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matt Long [mailto:mlong@mvsquared.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 3:58 AM
> > To: David Booth; Martin Gudgin
> > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Contradictions regarding transitivity of wsdl:import
> >
> > Correct me if I am wrong, but the value of wsdl:import is
> that you can
> > utilize a reference to a different target namespace than
> the importing
> > document. Therefore, in the list of QName encoded with
> > 'extends' may be
> > contain a QName that references a different target
> namespace than the
> > importing document such that wsdl:import is required.
> >
> > If A inherits B inherits C, where A imports B imports C, it seems
> > imperative
> > to understand which target namespaces A, B, C belong, and which
> > documents
> > wsdl:import which namespaces.
> >
> > Example 1:
> > If 'A' imports 'B' imports 'C': then for 'A' inherits 'B'
> inherits 'C'
> > to
> > exist:
> >
> > 'A' must wsdl:import *both* 'B' and 'C' namespaces.
> >
> >
> > Example 1 is actually non-transitive (even if it does look that way)
> > because
> > *if* 'A' does not wsdl:import 'C' namespace, then only 'A'
> > inherits 'B'
> > (B
> > does not inherit C with respect to 'A', which is what makes in
> > non-transitive)
> >
> > >From [1]
> >
> > "...Specifically, it can be used to import components from WSDL
> > descriptions
> > that do not share a target namespace with the importing document.
> > Components
> > in directly imported descriptions are part of the component
> > model of the
> > importing description. Directly imported means that component
> > importation is
> > not transitive; components imported by one of the imported
> > documents are
> > not
> > available to the original importing document unless the are imported
> > directly by that document. ..."
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/#imports
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matt Long
> > MV Squared Technologies
> > mlong@mvsquared.net
> > 901-848-2640
> >
> >
> > --------- Original Message --------
> > From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
> > To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
> > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Contradictions regarding transitivity of wsdl:import
> > Date: 13/04/05 22:15
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Gudge,
> > >
> > > I understand that the spec was intended to make wsdl:import be
> > > non-transitive, but I'm not getting that when I try to follow the
> > rules
> > > that are stated for the component model. Can you point
> me to where
> > I'm
> > > going wrong?
> > >
> > > Section 2.1.3, in the row for the {interfaces} property
> > (for example)
> > > says that its value is:
> > > [[
> > > The set of Interface components corresponding to all the interface
> > > element information items in the [children] of the
> > description element
> > > information item, if any, plus any included or imported Interface
> > > components (see 4. Modularizing WSDL descriptions)
> > > ]]
> > > So in the "A imports B imports C" example, let's
> > assume that
> > the
> > > {interfaces} property for A, B and C are the sets Ai, Bi and Ci,
> > > respectively. Further assume that I already know the set
> Ci, and I
> > now
> > > want to determine Bi (i.e., the {interfaces} property for B).
> > >
> > > According to the section 2.1.3 rule excerpted above, I
> > would conclude
> > > that the set Bi consists of the union of {"The set
> of Interface
> > > components corresponding to all the interface element information
> > items
> > > in the [children] of the description element information
> > item" of
> > B}
> > and
> > > Ci. (I.e., Ci is a subset of Bi.) Correct? Is Ci a
> subset of Bi?
> > If
> > > not, please explain why not. If Ci *is* a subset of Bi,
> then when A
> > > imports B, by the same rule Bi would be a subset of Ai,
> > which implies
> > > that Ci would also be a subset of Ai.
> > >
> > > In other words, I don't see how this rule is
> differentiating between
> > the
> > > Ci subset of Bi, and the rest of the Bi set. You're saying that
> > "the
> > > components defined in B are in one namespace whereas the
> > components B
> > > imports from C are in another namespace", but I
> don't see where
> > this
> > > namespace differentiation is reflected in the component model.
> > AFAICT,
> > > the {interfaces} property for B is simply a set that
> > includes Ci as a
> > > subset, per the section 2.1.3 rule excerpted above.
> > >
> > > Can you explain further, what you think the rule should be
> > (or how you
> > > think I should interpret it differently) for computing
> the value of
> > the
> > > {interfaces} property?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 14:30, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> > > > > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
> > David Booth
> > > > > Sent: 13 April 2005 10:38
> > > > > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > > > > Subject: Contradictions regarding transitivity of
> > wsdl:import
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Statements in Part 1 about the meaning of
> > wsdl:import appear
> > to
> > be
> > > > > contradictory. On one hand, sec 4.2 says that
> wsdl:import
> > is
> > not
> > > > > transitive. On the other hand, sec 2.1.1 says
> there is no
> > difference
> > > > > between included/imported components and
> > components derived
> > > > > directly from a
> > > > > WSDL 2.0 document, and this logically leads to
> > import being
> > > > > transitive.
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand why you would draw this
> conclusion. The only
> > > > difference between imported and included conmponents is that
> > included
> > > > components are in one namespace and imported
> components are in
> > another.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Suppose WSDL document A imports WSDL document B, which
> > imports
> > WSDL
> > > > > document C, which neither includes nor imports anything.
> > The
> > > > > components of
> > > > > C will be only the components derived directly
> > from the XML
> > > > > Infoset of
> > > > > C. Since B imports C, clearly the set of
> components for B
> > > > > will include the
> > > > > set of components for C.
> > > >
> > > > > So far so good. But A now imports
> > > > > B, so what
> > > > > components will A have? We have already
> established that
> > the
> > set of
> > > > > components of B includes the set of components
> from C as a
> > > > > subset.
> > > >
> > > > wsdl:import like xs:import is namespace based. The components
> > defined
> > in
> > > > C and not in the same namespace as the compontents
> defined in B
> > and
> > so
> > > > only the components from B are imported into A.
> > > >
> > > > > Since
> > > > > there is no distinction made between the subset of
> > components
> > that
> > > > > originated in C and the other components, the
> > components of
> > A
> > must
> > > > > therefore also include the components of C as a subset.
> > This
> > > > > contradicts
> > > > > the statement that "wsdl:import is not
> > transitive".
> > > > >
> > > > > The basic problem here is that the spec is
> > referring to the
> > > > > *components* of
> > > > > the imported document. Those components only
> exist if we
> > > > > interpret the
> > > > > meaning of the imported document according to
> the WSDL 2.0
> > > > > specification,
> > > > > at which point there is no way to know whether those
> > imported
> > > > > components
> > > > > originated in the imported document or another document
> > > > > (transitively).
> > > >
> > > > Yes there is. As noted above the components defined
> in B are in
> > one
> > > > namespace whereas the components B imports from C are
> > in another
> > > > namespace. The wsdl:import in A specifies that it is
> importing
> > > > components in the namespace of B.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Here are the relevant excerpts from the spec:
> > > > >
> > > > > Part 1 sec 4.2 Importing Descriptions
> > > > >
> > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20
> > > > > .html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#imports
> > > > > second paragraph says:
> > > > > [[
> > > > > Components in directly imported descriptions are
> > part of the
> > > > > component
> > > > > model of the importing description. Directly
> > imported means
> > > > > that component
> > > > > importation is not transitive; components
> > imported by one of
> > > > > the imported
> > > > > documents are NOT available to the original importing
> > > > > document unless the
> > > > > are imported directly by that document.
> > > > > ]]
> > > > >
> > > > > But section 2.1.1 The Description Component
> > > > >
> > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20
> > > > >
> > .html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Description_details
> > > > > sixth paragraph says:
> > > > > [[
> > > > > The set of interfaces/binding/services/etc.
> > available in the
> > > > > Description
> > > > > component include those that are defined within the
> > component
> > > > > itself and
> > > > > those that are imported and/or included. Note
> that at the
> > > > > component model
> > > > > level, there is no distinction between directly defined
> > > > > components vs.
> > > > > imported/included components.
> > > > > ]]
> > > > > Furthermore, sec 2.1.3 Mapping Description's XML
> > Representation
> > to
> > > > > Component Properties
> > > > >
> > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20
> > > > >
> > .html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Description_Mapping
> > > > > also shows no distinction between components that
> > originated
> > > > > in the WSDL
> > > > > 2.0 document and components that originated in an
> > > > > included/imported document.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > David Booth
> > > > > W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> > > > > Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > David Booth
> > > W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ________________________________________________
> > This message has been sent via webmail.
> > Please forward unsolicited email (spam) to...
> > abuse@hostonce.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2005 18:38:43 UTC