- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 01:39:49 -0800
- To: <ygoland@bea.com>, "Prasad Yendluri" <pyendluri@webmethods.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633801188FCE@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
IMO the text "Using the import construct is a necessary condition for making components from another namespace available to a WSDL description." is accurate language describing the behaviour. I don't see why any further text is needed in the core spec. Gudge ________________________________ From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yaron Goland Sent: 05 February 2004 01:33 To: 'Prasad Yendluri'; www-ws-desc@w3.org Subject: RE: Second level xs:import I must admit that I'm confused about the rules used to decide what goes into the core spec and what goes into the primer. My understanding is that an implementer should never need to read anything but the core specs in order to implement. A primer, to my understanding, is the moral equivalent of an O'Reilly book. Nice to have but it's not the reference and references need to be self-contained. This includes explanations for any ambiguities or non-intuitive behaviors. The current WSDL spec contains explanatory non-normative text of the exact same nature as what I propose below. For example, section 4.2 has the follow explanatory paragraph " Specifically it can be used to import components from WSDL descriptions that do not share a target namespace with the importing document. Components in imported descriptions are part of the component model of the importing description. The imported components can be referenced by QName. Using the import construct is a necessary condition for making components from another namespace available to a WSDL description. That is, a WSDL description cannot refer to components in a namespace other that the target namespace unless an import statement for that namespace is present. " If the previous paragraph is appropriate for the core spec and not for the primer then why is the text I proposed inappropriate for the core spec? Just Curious, Yaron -----Original Message----- From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Prasad Yendluri Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 5:16 PM To: www-ws-desc@w3.org Subject: Re: Second level xs:import Putting it in the primer makes sense to me as well. Thanks. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Second level xs:import Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 06:15:32 +0600 From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> <mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> To: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com> <mailto:pyendluri@webmethods.com> , <www-ws-desc@w3.org> <mailto:www-ws-desc@w3.org> References: <074601c3eb68$bfc1c860$65e5e40c@bea.com> <mailto:074601c3eb68$bfc1c860$65e5e40c@bea.com> <40216C5B.7020908@webmethods.com> <mailto:40216C5B.7020908@webmethods.com> +1 for putting in the primer. This does not belong in the core spec. In any case, if we do our jobs right about 10 people will read the core spec and millions (actually probably billions ;-)) will read the primer. Sanjiva. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Prasad Yendluri" <pyendluri@webmethods.com> <mailto:pyendluri@webmethods.com> To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org> <mailto:www-ws-desc@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 4:04 AM Subject: Re: Second level xs:import > I am in favor of clarifying this via some explanatory text in the spec. > This is a typical confusion and the members of this WG itself have gone > around this topic several times already, each time resulting in long > winded threads. I am sure many WSDL users that are novice and other that > are though beyond novice, yet to achieve expert level :) in schema > usage would find this helpful. When this issue shows up again we can > simply point to the right spot in the spec or say RTFS. > > Prasad > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: Second level xs:import > Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:49:31 -0500 (EST) > Resent-From: www-ws-desc@w3.org > Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:49:21 -0800 > From: Yaron Goland <ygoland@bea.com> <mailto:ygoland@bea.com> > Reply-To: <ygoland@bea.com> <mailto:ygoland@bea.com> > To: 'Amelia A Lewis' <alewis@tibco.com> <mailto:alewis@tibco.com> , 'Roberto Chinnici' > <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM> <mailto:Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM> > CC: <www-ws-desc@w3.org> <mailto:www-ws-desc@w3.org> > > While I can understand the motivation I would submit that the behavior is > not intuitive. At a minimum it would seem appropriate to include an > explanation of the behavior so that users and implementers will understand > what is going on. > > I therefore move that the following text be added to the end of the first > paragraph in section 3.1.1 as defined in the 2004/01/06 22:48:24 draft: The > prohibition against directly referring to components imported by schemas > that are themselves imported/included by WSDL is intended to force WSDL > definitions to directly refer to the schema definitions of all components > used by that WSDL. Requiring direct references to imported schema components > is felt to provide a cleaner WSDL definition. While this restriction may > make it look as if the same schema is being imported multiple times it is > not actually so. For example, Schema A imports Schema B which has components > needed by Schema A's definitions. A WSDL that imported Schema A is free to > reference any component in Schema A but the components in Schema B are, > effectively speaking, invisible to the WSDL. While Schema A can refer to > Schema B components, the WSDL cannot. If the WSDL needs to directly > reference schema B components then the WSDL must explicitly import Schema B. > Only when Schema B is explicitly imported by WSDL will Schema B's components > become visible to the WSDL. > > Yaron > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On > > Behalf Of Amelia A Lewis > > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 7:52 AM > > To: Roberto Chinnici > > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org > > Subject: Re: Second level xs:import > > > > > > > > Good analogy. +1. > > > > On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:34:57 -0800 > > Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM> <mailto:Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM> wrote: > > > > > It doesn't have anything to do with inheritance, it's > > really all about > > > modules. > > > > > > An xsd:import means "I'm going to use some top-level components from > > > this namespace, please make them available". Perhaps those > > components > > > need in turn to use components from yet another namespace, but why > > > should I see them? They are an implementation detail really. > > > > > > Or, to use a programming language analogy, xsd:import and > > wsdl:import > > > are more like Java import, not C #include. And that's the correct > > > definition, IMHO. > > > > > > Roberto > > > > > > > > > Yaron Goland wrote: > > > > If I import a Schema file from namespace Foo and the Schema File I > > > > imported itself imports a schema file from namespace Bar then > > > > effectively the WSDL file has imported namespace Bar as well and > > > > should be free to reference Bar. The inheritance chain is > > clear. The > > > > namespaces are all explicitly declared. What's the problem? > > > > > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > > > >>From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:mgudgin@microsoft.com] > > > >>Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 8:18 AM > > > >>To: ygoland@bea.com; Amelia A Lewis; David Orchard > > > >>Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org > > > >>Subject: RE: Second level xs:import > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>The *design* limitation, was that schema wanted people to be > > > >>*explicit* > > > >>about namespaces they wanted to use. So, in order to reference > > > >>components in namespace foo, a schema MUST have an import for > > > >>namespace > > > >>foo ( or itself be a schema for namespace foo ). > > > >> > > > >>I think it is a reasonable design decision to make for WSDL too. > > > >> > > > >>Gudge > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>-----Original Message----- > > > >>>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org > > > >>>[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yaron Goland > > > >>>Sent: 26 January 2004 17:30 > > > >>>To: 'Amelia A Lewis'; 'David Orchard' > > > >>>Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org > > > >>>Subject: RE: Second level xs:import > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>While I can appreciate the wisdom in re-use, re-use should > > > >>>only be done with open eyes and full understanding. Do we > > > >>>know the technical reason why the restriction is there? If > > > >>>not then we should either find out or remove the restriction. > > > >>> Thanks, > > > >>> Yaron > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>>-----Original Message----- > > > >>>>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org > > > >>> > > > >>>[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On > > > >>> > > > >>>>Behalf Of Amelia A Lewis > > > >>>>Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 12:05 PM > > > >>>>To: David Orchard > > > >>>>Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org > > > >>>>Subject: Re: Second level xs:import > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>Because that works the same way that schema import does, > > > >> > > > >>and that's what it's modeled on. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>Amy! > > > >>>>On Jan 26, 2004, at 2:54 PM, David Orchard wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>Why is it illegal to reference items that are included in an > > > >>>>>imported/included schema vis xs:import? (per section 3 of part 1) > > > >> > > > >>>>>Cheers, > > > >>>>>Dave > > > > > > > > > -- > > Amelia A. Lewis > > Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. > > alewis@tibco.com >
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2004 04:40:08 UTC