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

Re: WSDL 2.0 Component Model Interchange Format - HTTP Error Code Format

From: Youenn Fablet <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 16:11:25 +0200
To: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <4471C68D.1040809@crf.canon.fr>

Reviewing the interchange schemas for the wsdl extensions (rpc, 
soap...), I have some small comments:
1) why not having a wrapper element for soap/http extension components? 
This would allow to enforce some more constraints in the schema (like 
the fact that the soap version is a required property of the binding 
component).
2) In the soap cm schema, the type CodesType is a serie of 0 or more 
elements. The style generally used for the other interchange schemas is 
to have the wrapper element optional and the serie to be of 1 or more 
elements. It seems also that there is a lot of optionality with soap 
subcodes: soapFaultCode is optional and contains an optional subcodes 
elements that contains an optional list of code elements. Why not 
removing one of the element like the subcodes one ? Am I 
misunderstanding things here ?
3) the parent element is defined in several namespaces (at least the cm 
and soap namespaces). For instance the parent element of a soap module 
is in the soap namespace while the parent element of an operation 
component is in the cm namespace. It may be clearer to have them in the 
same namespace since they share the same semantics.

Two small notes concerning the comparison framework:
    - Is it planned to add automatic ordering of the soap subcodes, soap 
modules and http/soap headers ?
    - It seems feasible, at least with safety and rpc, to filter out 
these elements (on a namespace-based level) if an implementation 
declares that it does not support one of these features. This would 
allow to compare implementations with the canonical documents even if 
they do not fully implement all wsdl extensions. For the http/soap 
extensions, I am not sure of the right way to do that filtering, but it 
would also be nice to be able to check implementations supporting the 
soap binding only against wsdl documents that contain both soap and http 
binding (like the sparql document).

Regards,
    Youenn


Arthur Ryman wrote:
>
> I modifed the schema for outputing the HTTP error code to be 
> consistent with the SOAP fault code change.
>
> Woden is about to complete support for the HTTP binding extension, at 
> which time, I'll update the Woden test results.
>
> Arthur Ryman,
> IBM Software Group, Rational Division
>
> blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
> 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 
Received on Monday, 22 May 2006 14:11:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:40 GMT