- From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:19:52 -0500
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
- Cc: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, tomj@macromedia.com, abrookes@roguewave.com, WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
True enough. The current Axis WSDL processor certainly does import all schemas inside the <types> of an imported WSDL into the processing context so they are available if they get imported, and I doubt we would do otherwise for WSDL 2.0. Although you are certainly correct that there can be no "guarantee" in a strict sense, there was still some question as to whether this case would be mentioned at all in the spec. --G ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com> To: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com> Cc: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>; "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>; <tomj@macromedia.com>; <abrookes@roguewave.com>; "WS-Description WG" <www-ws-desc@w3.org> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 1:28 PM Subject: Re: Schemas in imported WSDL > Glen, I intentionally omitted the word guarantee. > > Just as we cannot give any guarantee that the import will be available, > just as we cannot give any guarantee that WSDLs over 10k will be > processed, we cannot provide guarantees (or any kind of simple language, > it seems) about those imports. On the other hand, if I was implementing > a WSDL processor, I think I'd make that case possible almost > inadvertently. > > Jacek Kopecky > > Systinet Corporation > http://www.systinet.com/ > > > > On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 08:05, Glen Daniels wrote: > > > I also agree on the semantics as far as Gudge formulated it. > > > > > > But I thought WSDL A can use schema C inlined in WSDL B if WSDL A > > > wsdl:imports WSDL B and xs:imports schema C (probably omitting the > > > location attribute). > > > > That was pretty much the jist of the conversation we had at the F2F; whether or > > not there should be any guarantee of being able to do just that. Apparently > > the answer is "no", though. > > > > --G > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 14 November 2003 15:20:12 UTC