W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2002

RE: issue: optional parts in <message>?

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 19:29:55 -0700
Message-ID: <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC1072FFE49@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Bob Cunnings [mailto:cunnings@whitemesa.com] wrote:
>The one thing that stands out is the constraint that header entry
elements >reference <parts> of a _single_ message associated with the
operation >(along with the body parts). I'm wondering if it will
interfere with a >desire to compose in a freer manner, with soap:header
declarations >directily referencing parts in <import>'ed messages
(perhaps provided by >third parties e.g. security extensions), on an as
needed basis. Of course >the header entry <part> defined in one's own
single message can directly >reference an _element_ in the foreign
schema if it is imported. The effect >should be the same, but I wonder
if there is drawback to doing it that way. >What's new in this approach
seems to be that any header entry definitions >are now captured in the
abstract definition of the operation, by virtue of >the reference to a
single message containing both body and header parts. >Does this
represent a convenient bundling of related parts, or a forcing >together
of what might be viewed as orthogonal parts, which might better be >left
to the binding? Maybe I'm misconstruing the situation.

It would be a shame if we invented a "simpler" representational type
system when XML Schema (XSD) is already a very capable one. Using XSD,
one should be able to describe the entire message in a manner that
allows suitable re-usability between other XSD descriptions. Are we
re-inventing the wheel too much here?

Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2002 22:30:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:23 UTC