W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > November 2003

RE: Schemas in imported WSDL

From: Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:00:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CB1FF0A474AEA84EA0206D5B05F6A4CB04E767BE@S1001EXM02.macromedia.com>
To: "'Amelia A. Lewis'" <alewis@tibco.com>, "'Martin Gudgin'" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: "'www-ws-desc@w3.org'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Thanks Gudge for (once again) clearing this up for me/us.

What you and Amy say makes sense, it would be *very* cool if explanations like this could make their way in to the specification so that others will not get as confused as I was.

Can one of the editors do this?

Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development

-----Original Message-----
From: Amelia A. Lewis [mailto:alewis@tibco.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 11:46 AM
To: Martin Gudgin
Cc: tomj@macromedia.com; abrookes@roguewave.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Re: Schemas in imported WSDL

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:18:43 -0800
Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Given WSDL A importing WSDL B which either imports or declares inline
> Schema C then only *WSDL* constructs defined in WSDL B are visible to
> WSDL A. The schema constructs defined in Schema C are only visible to
> WSDL B, they are not visible to WSDL A.
> Note that this DOES NOT stop you using the WSDL constructs from WSDL B
> in WSDL A. So if you have an interface in WSDL B that uses types in
> Schema C, you can define a binding for that interface in WSDL A.
> It DOES stop you defining a new interface in WSDL A that references
> schema constructs in Schema C.

Completely agree that this *is* the current semantic, and that it
*should be* the semantic.

If you want the schema to be made available to multiple WSDLs, create it
standalone and import.  One of the semantics of inlining/embedding a
schema (in my opinion) is to say "mine, mine, my schema, mine, mine,
mine!"  Hands off; don't touch; For Internal Use Only; No
User-Serviceable Parts Inside.  It is useful to be able to say this.  If
it were the only thing that could be said, then it would be a problem,
but it isn't.  If it's intended for reuse, put it where it can be
reused.  If it's in a private location, then it's perfectly sensible
that it's only available for private use.

Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
Received on Friday, 14 November 2003 10:59:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:36 UTC