- From: <Paul.V.Biron@kp.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 09:20:51 -0700
- To: gcowe@origoservices.com
- Cc: paul.downey@bt.com, public-xsd-databinding@w3.org, public-xsd-databinding-request@w3.org
> The schemas are different but belong in the same 'domain'. I will > supply a cut down example to demonstrate this. A lot of the > information supplied in the request is echoed back in the response > but with additional information included (hence the request schema > is almost a subset of the response schema). A particular domain (e. > g. Quotes & New Business) has several product specific elements but > also has several common elements (like policy-holder address). The > namespace is shared across the domain which is > represented by several product specific schemas each having a > request and response schema. This is a very common pattern so hopefully the WG will not provide any advice to avoid it. > >> In WSDL we have a request-response service with a request message > >> and a response message defined separately. > > This doesn't work when combining the schemas due the complex types > with same name but differing content that appear in each of the > separate schemas. We would need to rename elements in the schema to > allow combining both the request and response into one schema. > I think the tools have made a big assumption when it comes to the > decision to use the namespace to name the packages. That's a problem with the WSDL spec and not some data binding tool. I know, because I submitted a comment to the WSDL WG that they should fix this (the solution I offered was to partition the type spec in to input, output or both spaces), but they declined to change their spec. > >> When using data binding tools to generate code from the WSDL > >> (Apache Axis 1.3 WSDL2Java in our case) the target namespace is > >> used to name the packages containing the generated classes. > > >OK, but there is usually an override to assert a package name > >for generated classes, this seems like something we could > >encourage toolkits to support. Yes, this is something that the WG should STRONGLY suggest to tool vendors. pvb
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2006 16:22:00 UTC