Re: WSDL Import/Include Locations

Yaron,

The WSDL processor will still try to load each URL because the two 
documents could contain different definitions in the f:00 namespace. 
However, this still provides some degree of failover in the case the 
documents have the same contents.

When the processor sees the first <import> it adds the f:oo namespace to 
the set of imported namespaces so that definitions in the current document 
can legally refer to any components in the f:oo namespace.
The processor then ties to load fileA, which may or may not work. If it 
works, the components in fileA are added to the set of known components. 
Similarly for fileB. If both fileA and fileB are reachable and have the 
same content then the only downside is the extra processing time. 

So if you want failover, you can have it, but you pay a price in 
processing time.

Arthur Ryman,
Rational Desktop Tools Development

phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063
intranet: http://w3.torolab.ibm.com/DEAB/

www-ws-desc-request@w3.org wrote on 03/12/2004 02:52:16 PM:

> This then brings up another scenario that I'm not even sure is legal. 
> Imagine I have a WSDL namespace FOO and two files, FileA and FileB that 
> both define components in namespace FOO. The two files do not define any 

> common components and the two files do not include each other. In other 
> words, each file is completely stand alone. In that case if a WSDL for 
> namespace BAR should have:
> <import namespace="f:oo" location="http://example.com/fileA"/>
> <import namespace="f:oo" location="http://example.com/fileB"/>
> 
> And if the WSDL should optimize by only successfully downloading one of 
> the two links then components needed by WSDL BAR would not be 
downloaded.
> 
> This scenario presumes however that it is legal to have two completely 
> independent files defining non-overlapping components in the same 
> namespace that do not reference each other. Is that legal?
> 
>    Thanks,
> 
>       Yaron
>