W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2004

Re: WSDL Import/Include Locations

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:40:28 +0100
To: ygoland@bea.com
Cc: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1077115227.26488.51.camel@localhost>

Yaron, since the location is just a hint, do you think you could just
have a few import statements with different locations?

<import namespace="a" location="a.wsdl"/>
<import namespace="a" location="http://somewhere.else/a.wsdl"/>

I would like to keep the similarity between XML Schema's import and
WSDL's import.


On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 00:09, Yaron Goland wrote:
> Both WSDL import and include only allow for a single location to be
> specified. Given the unreliable nature of the Internet would it not be
> appropriate to allow for more than one location to be specified?
> Given the permissive semantics of include it would be tempting to specify
> multiple includes, all pointing to the same file but at different locations
> as a way to make the WSDL definition more robust in the face of network
> failures. However this would needlessly waste system resources making
> unnecessary file requests. If the WSDL processor knows that a set of URIs
> are equivalent then it need only make requests until it finds a URI that
> works.
> In the case of import the specification doesn't actually define what happens
> if someone writes two imports for an identical namespace. Although some
> limited definition redundancy is supported by the spec the support would not
> appear to be robust enough to support importing the same WSDL definition
> twice. Therefore putting in two imports as a way to provide redundant
> locations would appear illegal.
> But this begs the question - Is it illegal to specify two imports for the
> same namespace? If so, shouldn't this be explicitly stated in the spec?
> What is the required behavior if it is impossible to successfully
> import/include an identified document? If this an unrecoverable error that
> requires that the WSDL be rejected for processing? If so, then shouldn't the
> spec explicitly state this?
> 	Thanks,
> 		Yaron
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2004 09:40:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:38 UTC