W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > February 2002

RE: WSDL and possible UPA violation

From: Xan Gregg <xan@tibco.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:58:43 -0500
Message-ID: <339902DC0E58D411986A00B0D03D8432D076E6@extmail.extensibility.com>
To: "'Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI'" <kohsukekawaguchi@yahoo.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
I believe you are right; it does violate the constraint.

xan

-----Original Message-----
From: Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI [mailto:kohsukekawaguchi@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 6:39 PM
To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Subject: WSDL and possible UPA violation



I found the following part in the WSDL schema, a normative part of W3C
Note (http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl)

---------------------------
  <complexType name="operationType">
   <complexContent>
    <extension base="wsdl:documented">
      <choice>
         <group ref="wsdl:one-way-operation"/>
         <group ref="wsdl:request-response-operation"/>
         ....
      </choice>
      ....
    </extension>
   </complexContent>
  </complexType>
  
  
   <group name="one-way-operation">
      <sequence>
         <element ref="wsdl:input"/>
      </sequence>
   </group>
   <group name="request-response-operation">
      <sequence>
         <element ref="wsdl:input"/>
         <element ref="wsdl:output"/>
         <element ref="wsdl:fault" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      </sequence>
   </group>
---------------------------


I believe this is a violation of UPA, just like the following schema is
a violation of UPA:

<choice>
  <element ref="foo"/>
  <sequence>
    <element ref="foo"/>
    <element ref="bar"/>
  </sequence>
</choice>



Am I right? Or am I wrong?


regards,
--
Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI                          +1 607 257 0037
Sun Microsystems                   kohsuke.kawaguchi@sun.com
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 14:59:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:26 GMT