W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > December 2006

RE: Comment on Fragment Identifiers

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:31:54 -0800
Message-ID: <E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9C02E3BE3F@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan@wso2.com>, "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>, "Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Cc: <public-ws-policy@w3.org>, <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

PS.  This is Yet Another Reason Why I Don't Like Component Models That
Are Different From Infosets(YARWIDLCMTADFI). 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Orchard 
> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:27 PM
> To: 'Jonathan Marsh'; 'Amelia A Lewis'; 'Paul Cotton'
> Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org; ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; 
> www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Comment on Fragment Identifiers
> 
> Ah, very very interesting.  I for one had forgotten that the 
> meps had in|out as component names rather than the syntax 
> local names of input and output.  
> 
> Now just to confirm my understanding.  If the wsdl meps are 
> used, they have no multiple messages in a single direction so 
> component names are sufficient and they are used as the 
> message labels.  If different meps are used, particularly a 
> mep that has multiple messages in a single direction, then 
> each message will have a unique message label and that will be used.  
> 
> I think that WSDL-only processing can still generate and 
> evaluate the component identifiers because the extensibility 
> point is only in the # of messages, not in the component names.  
> 
> Cheers,
> Davce
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jonathan@wso2.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 4:06 PM
> > To: 'Amelia A Lewis'; 'Paul Cotton'
> > Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org; ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; 
> David Orchard; 
> > www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Comment on Fragment Identifiers
> > 
> > Sorry, not the first time I've messed up the capitalization - the 
> > {direction} token is an enumeration of "in" and "out"
> > (note lack of capitalization!), and I really need to double-check 
> > which property values are capitalized and which aren't 
> before putting 
> > fingers to keyboard...
> > 
> > <input> maps to {direction} = "in".  <output> maps to {direction} = 
> > "out".
> > But as Amy says, when you can have multiple messages in a single 
> > direction within a MEP, {direction} is insufficient to 
> identify them.  
> > {message label} provides a unique token for messages within 
> a MEP with 
> > which to identify them.
> > 
> > This is not terribly obvious from a cursory read of the 
> spec because 
> > of our defaulting rules, that will automatically map 
> {message label} 
> > to "In" or "Out" for the MEPs we define, so it looks to the casual 
> > user like the <input> is causing {message label} = "In" 
> when in fact 
> > what's happening under the covers is a little more 
> sophisticated and 
> > general-purpose.
> > 
> > Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - 
> > http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
> >  
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Amelia A Lewis [mailto:alewis@tibco.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 2:58 PM
> > > To: Paul Cotton
> > > Cc: jonathan@wso2.com; public-ws-policy@w3.org; 
> > > ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; dorchard@bea.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: Comment on Fragment Identifiers
> > > 
> > > Not replying for the group, but I believe that I understand the 
> > > question and the mistaken assumption within it.  :-)
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:44:42 -0800
> > > Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > >We are wondering why the designators use "in" and "our" 
> given that 
> > > >the actual WSDL message labels are "input" and "output"?
> > > 
> > > In fact, we do not use "in" or "out".  We use the messageLabel 
> > > specified in the message exchange pattern.  In part two, 
> all of the 
> > > message labels in all of the message exchange patterns are
> > restricted
> > > to the set "In" and "Out" (note capitalization).  In the 
> particular 
> > > example cited, which relies on the in-out pattern, there
> > are two messages, one labelled "In"
> > > and one labelled "Out".
> > > 
> > > "input" and "output" are nowhere used as message labels.  
> > They are the
> > > local names of element information items in the WSDL 2.0 syntax.  
> > > These element information items are not referenced in the 
> syntax of 
> > > component designators, although as a class, they can be 
> identified 
> > > with the combination of .interfaceMessageReference() with
> > their unique
> > > identifiers (ticketAgent/reserveFlight/In and 
> > > ticketAgent/reserveFlight/Out in the example).
> > > 
> > > >Was this a conscious decision of the WSDL WG?
> > > 
> > > Yes.  There may be more than one [input] element
> > information item or
> > > more than one [output] element information item in an interface 
> > > operation in a valid WSDL, but all of the {messageLabel}
> > properties of
> > > all of the {interfaceMessageReference} components of an interface 
> > > operation MUST be unique.
> > > 
> > > >This apparent discrepancy can be seen in the examples in
> > Appendix C.2
> > > >of the WSDL 2.0 Candidate Recommendation [1].
> > > >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-20060327/#Iri-ref-ex
> > > 
> > > I hope that the above explanation clarifies matters.  It
> > may behoove
> > > us to make some sort of explanation of this sort publicly
> > available,
> > > as it appears to be on its way to being a FAQ.
> > > 
> > > Amy!
> > > --
> > > Amelia A. Lewis
> > > Senior Architect
> > > TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
> > > alewis@tibco.com
> > 
> > 
> 
Received on Friday, 22 December 2006 01:32:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:43 GMT