W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2005

RE: Contradictions regarding transitivity of wsdl:import

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 12:02:37 -0400
To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-Id: <1113667357.13968.512.camel@nc6000.w3.org>

On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 20:31, Martin Gudgin wrote:
>  
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org] 
> > . . .
> > I think it would be considerably clearer if the component model for a
> > "WSDL 2.0 document"*** (see below) would consist of all and 
> > *only* those
> > components that are supposed to be visible to that WSDL 2.0 document
> > (which in the A-imports-B-imports-C example would include components
> > that originated from B but NOT those that originated from C). 
> >  Is there
> > some reason why you think this approach would be inadequate?
> 
> Well, it would mean that some of the components of B would be
> 'incomplete' because the components from C that they refer to would be
> missing.

Not if B has its own component model, as you go on to suggest . . .

> 
> I wonder if what we actually have is a component model for the root
> which includes imported components and a separate component model for
> each imported namespace (recurse as necessary).

Bingo.  I think that approach would be considerably clearer, because
there would be a more direct correspondence between each WSDL 2.0
document and its projection into a component model, rather than a
single, collapsed component model for all, with special rules that
govern which components are supposed to be visible at what points.

-- 

David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Received on Saturday, 16 April 2005 16:02:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:35 GMT