RE: issue: optional parts in <message>?

Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@webMethods.com] wrote:
>1. The original issue as stated in the subject: Can we have mark
certain
>parts in a message optional.
>2. If we need the message construct at all when the XML Schema can
capture
>the entire message construct. I guess if this wins the first one
resolves
>automatically :)
>
>On #2, I agree with many of the points made below. I think it is
helpful
>and clean to be able model at the abstract level  input /output to
>operations comprising 'n' distinct parts irrespective their fundamental
>type and nature.

Reasoning about parts of a message without reasoning about their
representational type is an intriguing point, but I don't (yet) see how
this is used by bindings, development-time tools, or automatically
generated proxies that de/serialize. 

>IMO, XML Schema is too XML centric and using it model
>non-XML types is very unnatural.

I see XML Schema as _the_ interoperable standard for representational
types, and it would be great if we could (someday) leverage it fully to
simplify WSDL.

>Additionally you want to be able to just
>drop in existing Schemas (RosettaNet, OAG etc.) rather than having to
>define XML-Schema wrappers for them and any associated entities such as
>attachments etc.

I don't buy this. I don't see how defining an XML Schema wrapper for
various entities is worse than defining a WSDL message wrapper for the
same.

--Jeff

Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2002 21:51:57 UTC