W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2007

Re: propagation of values in the component model

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:35:14 +0100
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-id: <45D46192.4010507@crf.canon.fr>

Personally, I prefer when apps are small and there's a higher-level 
interface. It's good to factor things out as much as you can rather than 
duplicate.

As for WSDL itself, te issue was discussed previously [1] and the status 
quo prevaled.

JJ.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR044

Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> as you may be aware, SAWSDL defines a few annotation properties that
> apply to WSDL documents, for example modelReference (a set of URIs).
> SAWSDL also introduces the property {model reference} on the annotated
> WSDL components, e.g. on Interface components.
>
> In some situations, the model references on some components apply also
> on other components, e.g. from an interface to another interface that
> extends the first one. The SAWSDL WG is about to discuss whether this
> propagation should manifest in the WSDL Component Model or not, i.e.
> whether the extending Interface component's {model reference} property
> should include the values of {model reference} from the extended
> Interface component(s) (values of {extended interfaces} property).
>
> I note that the WSDL language itself goes both ways, in a sense: 
>      1. The {style} property on Interface Operation gets its value
>         either from the operation element's style attribute, or from the
>         parent interface element's styleDefault attribute.
>      2. The {http method} property is only instantiated from the
>         whttp:method attribute, and it's up to the implementations of
>         the HTTP binding to use {http method default} in case {http
>         method} is missing.
>
> The first approach means that a parser (if it's modeled after the
> component model) will do the value propagation and apps need not care
> whether style came from style="..." or styleDefault="...". However, this
> approach also has a problem when creating a WSDL and then serializing it
> into a WSDL file: the serializer must guess the styleDefault because it
> only knows the {style} values of all the operations.
>
> The second approach requires that the propagation is done by the app,
> leaving space for error above the parser. But in the HTTP binding's case
> this is necessary, e.g. when an interfaceless binding is combined with
> some interface and the whttp:methodDefault applies. In fact the values
> were propagated before we noticed that this doesn't work for
> interfaceless bindings, can I therefore assume that it's in the spirit
> of the component model to propagate the values as much as possible?
>
> Basically, I'd like to ask for any opinion on which way SAWSDL should go
> - should the component model implement all the propagation or should it
> more closely reflect the actual file, leaving the propagation rules to
> be implemented in the apps?
>
> BTW, it is *not* my intention to say that WSDL is inconsistent in its
> behavior and should be fixed in any way.
>
> Bets regards,
> Jacek
>
>
>   
Received on Thursday, 15 February 2007 13:35:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:46 GMT