RE: WSDL Import/Include Locations

I'm not sure why you'd draw that conclusion. I note schema import has
exactly the same issues as wsdl:import and I've not heard anybody
suggesting that schema is broken in this regard...

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yaron Y. Goland
> Sent: 01 March 2004 23:02
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: Arthur Ryman; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WSDL Import/Include Locations
> 
> 
> Which means that if one did decide to use two imports to pull 
> in the same data for the purpose of robustness then if both 
> imports succeed, besides wasting time and resources, the WSDL 
> would be illegal since the same data would be pulled in twice.
> 
> Therefore it would seem appropriate to make it possible to 
> list multiple URIs on a single import with the explicit 
> semantics that one should try them in a random order (for 
> load balancing purposes) until one works.
> 
> 	Yaron
> 
> Martin Gudgin wrote:
> 
> > I didn't say the spec prohibited two or more imports with the same 
> > namespace attribute. I said it prohibited two or more imports that 
> > resulted in components in a given symbol space with duplicate names.
> >  
> > I believe the spec already states that an import is a necessary 
> > condition in order to reference components in a given 
> namespace that 
> > is not the target namespace
> >  
> > Gudge
> > 
> >     
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> >     *From:* www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] *On
> >     Behalf Of *Arthur Ryman
> >     *Sent:* 20 February 2004 20:24
> >     *To:* www-ws-desc@w3.org
> >     *Subject:* Re: WSDL Import/Include Locations
> > 
> > 
> >     Gudge,
> > 
> >     I looked at the spec and the schema and I couldn't see 
> where we prohit two
> >     or more <import>'s that have the same namespace attribute.
> > 
> >     Also, in the case of diamond inheritance, you will end 
> up indirectly
> >     importing the same WSDL into the component model twice. 
> We allowed this by
> >     saying if a component is defined twice or more then the 
> definitions must be
> >     equivalent.
> > 
> >     I have been looking at imports and includes in the spec 
> and I think we need
> >     to clarilfy the situation. If a WSDL directly 
> references a component from
> >     another namespace, then that namespace MUST be declared 
> in a top level
> >     import, whereas any components that are directly or 
> indirectly included or
> >     imported do become part of the component model. The 
> component model
> >     "forgets" where they come from, yet we do care about 
> where they come from by
> >     requiring top-level imports. We seem to have two levels 
> at which we discuss
> >     correctness, namely at the document level (where we 
> have imports and
> >     includes) and at the component model level (after 
> imports and includes are
> >     resolved). This is analogous to PSVI. We seem to have 
> the notion of a Pre
> >     and Post Import/Include Processing Component Model.
> > 
> >     Arthur Ryman,
> >     Rational Desktop Tools Development
> > 
> >     phone: 905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
> >     assistant: 905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
> >     fax: 905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
> >     intranet: http://w3.torolab.ibm.com/DEAB/
> > 
> >     www-ws-desc-request@w3.org wrote on 02/18/2004 06:05:01 PM:
> > 
> >      >
> >      >
> >      > Martin Gudgin wrote:
> >      > Actually I think our current spec already prohibits 
> multiple imports
> >      > ( or includes ) of components with duplicate names. 
> So while you
> >      > could do two imports of the same namespace, it would 
> only work if
> >      > all the components in the second had names different 
> from those in the
> >     first.
> >      >  
> >      > Gudge
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 2 March 2004 14:09:15 UTC