RE: is the uniqueness constraint on top level components sufficient?

The spec currently says ( for interfaces, for example )

For each interface component in the {interfaces} property of a
definitions container the combination of {name} and {target namespace}
properties must be unique. 

There is only ever one definitions container. Therefore there is only
one {interfaces} property. Therefore interfaces MUST all have unique
Qnames. If they don't it's an error and the WSDL parser should
catch-fire-and-die. 

I don't understand what it is you want to change.

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
> Sent: 19 September 2003 04:32
> To: David Orchard; 'Roberto Chinnici'
> Cc: Martin Gudgin; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: is the uniqueness constraint on top level 
> components sufficient?
> 
> Looks like I've been out-voted, but let me whether I can 
> explain why I think we need to put some more clarification. I 
> am *not* looking for a way to check or test whether QNames 
> are indeed unique, but it is fully within our purview to say 
> that they must be. If we say that then someone receiving a 
> WSDL component QName and resolving it to a component with 
> that name has some reason to believe they've got the right 
> one: the WSDL spec says it must be so. If we don't require 
> it, there is no such confidence.
> 
> Let's say I'm writing a BPEL thing and want to refer to a 
> WSDL interface (portType today). BPEL will refer to it by 
> QName, a:foo.
> Now "somehow" the BPEL process will find the portType named 
> a:foo from a WSDL. How does it know it indeed got the "right" 
> one named a:foo? If the WSDL spec says that there must only 
> be one portType named a:foo then that provides some 
> confidence that it did indeed get the right one. Now, the 
> owner of the a: namespace could've of course screwed up and 
> allowed two a:foo's to exist but that's that guy's fault. At 
> least the WSDL spec says that's not legal.
> 
> The wording we currently have doesn't preclude one from 
> naming two different interfaces a:foo. What I'd like to do is 
> tighten that wording so that the spec says that QNames of top 
> level WSDL components MUST be unique period. I am happy to 
> even add a note saying "we realize this is not testable and 
> that its totally up to the owner of the namespace to enforce it."
> 
> Anyone crossing over to my camp?
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
> To: "'Roberto Chinnici'" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>; 
> "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'"
> <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
> Cc: "'Martin Gudgin'" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 2:28 AM
> Subject: RE: is the uniqueness constraint on top level 
> components sufficient?
> 
> 
> >
> > Indeed, I agree with gudge and roberto.  Seems like it's the
> responsibility
> > of the ns owner to figure out the names, vocabularies and languages 
> > within it's namespaces.  Using URIs for ns names at least makes it 
> > very clear
> what
> > the domain authority is.  Now if we had better RDDL 
> support, it might 
> > be easier to check what sanjiva wants.  And I think that's 
> the route to go.
> >
> > For now, I think the constraints on names are reasonable.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Dave
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> > > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Roberto Chinnici
> > > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 11:33 AM
> > > To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
> > > Cc: Martin Gudgin; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: is the uniqueness constraint on top level components 
> > > sufficient?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> > > > Hi Gudge,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>I think you will find that as far as our spec is 
> concerned there 
> > > >>is always EXACTLY ONE definitions container even in cases where 
> > > >>the contents of that container came from multiple locations.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's for included or imported stuff right? Is there 
> anything in 
> > > > the spec which says that *all* stuff for the target 
> namespace are 
> > > > part of EXACTLY ONE definitions container? If so then we're in 
> > > > business. If not its certainly possible for two 
> documents to point 
> > > > to the same namespace yet not be aware of each other:
> > > >
> > > > <definitions targetNamespace="http://www.ibm.com/">
> > > >    ... stuff for one service ...
> > > > </definitions>
> > > >
> > > > <definitions targetNamespace="http://www.ibm.com/">
> > > >    ... stuff for another service ...
> > > > </definitions>
> > >
> > > I don't think that adding an untestable requirement of 
> this kind to 
> > > the spec does any good. If somebody wants to have two 
> WSDL documents 
> > > for the same target namespace, so be it. The burden to be 
> > > extra-careful in their definitions falls on them.
> > >
> > > Roberto
> > >
> > > --
> > > Roberto Chinnici
> > > Java Web Services
> > > Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> > > roberto.chinnici@sun.com
> > >
> > >
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 19 September 2003 17:37:37 UTC