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

Re: Choice of response message in WSDL

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:28:01 -0500
To: "Tony Fletcher" <tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFCE50E031.2B85B6B8-ON85256F93.006C712B-85256F93.00706C97@ca.ibm.com>
Tony,

The WSDL 2.0 WG discussed the message issue at length, and the conclusion 
was that if we added support for constructs like "choice" then we would we 
slowly but surely reproduce a lot of XSD. There were many requests for 
more control over the parts of a message. The solution we adopted was to 
discard the WSDL 1.1 <message> and <part> elements altogether and simply 
use XSD Global Element Declarations (GEDs) directly.

The key point about this design is that the GED is viewed as an abstract 
message definition. The concrete details come in at the binding level. The 
binding rules are simple in the case where the concrete message is the 
same as the abstract message, e.g. for SOAP, the simple case is to use the 
GED as the <body> content of the SOAP <envelope>

In your case, the idea would be to define a GED, BorC, whose content model 
was a choice of the two response messages:

<schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" targetNamespace=
"http://example.com/choicy" xmlns:tns="http://example.com/choicy">
        <element name="B" type="string"></element>

        <element name="C" type="string"></element>

        <element name="BorC">
                <complexType>
                        <choice>
                                <element ref="tns:B"></element>
                                <element ref="tns:C"></element>
                        </choice>
                </complexType>
        </element>

</schema>

The WSDL 2.0 interface (aka portType) is:

<interface name="Responder">
     <operation name="abc">
         <input message="tns:A"/>
         <output message="tns:BorC"/>
        <outfault name="fault" message="tns:F"/>
     </operation>
</interface>


This introduces a top level wrapper element <BorC> that you probably don't 
want in the concrete SOAP message. The solution is to modify the SOAP 
binding rules, i.e. to copy the content of the GED into the <body> rather 
than the entire GED including that unwanted root element.

FYI, we have had a related request to allow more flexibility in our SOAP 
binding to permit muliptle children in the <body>. The binding rule: "copy 
the element content into the <body>" would work for your case and the 
multiple children case.

Does this binding approach satisfy your requirement?

Note that the fault issue is handled at the MEP level. We have several 
predefined MEPs already that specify how and when fault elements occur. 
See part 2. [1]

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-extensions-20040803/

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, text: 4169395063@fido.ca
intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/



"Tony Fletcher" <tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
01/24/2005 01:30 PM

To
<www-ws-desc@w3.org>
cc

Subject
Choice of response message in WSDL






To the W3C Web Service Description Group,
 
[Please copy me directly on responses as while I am on the WS-Choreography 
mailing lists I am not on the Web Service Description mailing lists - 
Thank you.]


In the Last Call version of the WS-Choreography specification several 
exchange elements are allowed in an interaction element.  One is the 
request going in one direction and the others must be in the reverse 
direction.  Only one of these is allowed to be the 'normal' response 
message, all the others must be fault messages.
 
The case I am particularly interested in seems to be supported by neither 
WS-Choreography at present nor WSDL 2.0  and I wonder if it should be. (I 
understand that WSDL 2.0 could support what I propose as an extension, 
though I make  this comment to the WSD group with the aim of making it a 
standardised feature.) 
 
 Suppose I have request - response protocol pair but there can be several 
distinct response messages.  So I want to say the request message is A and 
the response is B or C (or possibly fault message X or Fault message Y). 
 
I realise that of course you can write it as five (in this case) one way 
interactions, but that looses the request response semantic.  You could 
also re-write the protocol to only use a single response message and 
internally to the response message have different parameter values that 
give the semantics of B or C - and likewise one can re-write the Fault 
message to combine X and Y, but why should one have to change the protocol 
to suit WSDL?
 
 In WS-Choreography I would like to be able to write, for example, 
something like: 
<interaction name="ABCF" channelVariable="tns:aChannel" operation="a"> 
      <participate relationshipType="SuperiorInferior" 
fromRole="tns:Superior" toRole="Inferior"/> 
      <exchange name="A" informationType="Atype" action="request">
              <send variable="tns:A"/>
              <receive variable="tns:A"/>
       </exchange>
       <exchange name="B" informationType="BType" action="respond">
              <send variable="tns:B"/>
              <receive variable="tns:B"/>
        </exchange>
        <exchange name="C" informationType="CType" action="respond">
              <send variable="tns:C"/> 
              <receive variable="tns:C"/>
        </exchange>
        <exchange name="F" informationType="FType" action="respond">
              <send variable="tns:F" causeException="true"/>
              <receive variable="tns:F" causeException="true"/>
        </exchange>
</interaction> 
 
and in the corresponding Web Service description  I would like to be able 
to write something like:
<portType name="Requester">
     <operation name="abc">
          <output message="tns:A"/>
          <input message="tns:B"/>
          <input message="tns:C"/>
          <fault name="fault" message="tns:F"/>
     </operation>
</portType>
<portType name="Responder">
     <operation name="abc">
          <input message="tns:A"/>
          <output message="tns:B"/>
          <output message="tns:C"/>
          <fault name="fault" message="tns:F"/>
     </operation>
</portType>
 
or with explicit choice construct:
<portType name="Requester">
     <operation name="abc">
          <output message="tns:A"/>
          <choice>
              <input message="tns:B"/>
              <input message="tns:C"/>
         </choice>
          <fault name="fault" message="tns:F"/>
     </operation>
</portType>
<portType name="Responder">
     <operation name="abc">
          <input message="tns:A"/>
          <choice>
              <output message="tns:B"/>
              <output message="tns:C"/>
           </choice>
        <fault name="fault" message="tns:F"/>
     </operation>
</portType>
 
 I would be quite happy to have either some sort of explicit 'choice' 
construct around the multiple responds that are regular permitted 
responses and therefore do not have cause exception set, or an implicit 
choice as we currently have for multiple exception causing responses.
 
Best Regards,
Tony 


Tony Fletcher
Technical Advisor 
Choreology Ltd.
68, Lombard Street, London EC3V 9L J   UK
Phone: 
+44 (0) 1473 729537
Mobile: 
+44 (0) 7801 948219
Fax: 
+44 (0) 870 7390077
Web:
www.choreology.com
Cohesions?
Business transaction management software for application coordination
Work: tony.fletcher@choreology.com 
Home: amfletcher@iee.org
 


picture
(image/gif attachment: 01-part)

Received on Monday, 24 January 2005 20:28:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:34 GMT