- From: Yaron Goland <ygoland@bea.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:09:15 -0800
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
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 Thursday, 22 January 2004 18:12:33 UTC