Re: Processor conformance: fault on non-conformant input

OK so what's the verdict on this thread? David Booth can you
please give a summary and recommendation?

THanks,

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Prasad Yendluri" <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 12:39 AM
Subject: Re: Processor conformance: fault on non-conformant input


> Here is a use case I have. What if the binding was both not used and
> illegally formed because the user made typing errors and the user
> expects that the tool (the WSDL processor) would parse and flag such
> conditions so that the user can fix it. On the other hand the user
> downloaded a WSDL from a registry and would like to work with it and
> does not care about certain parts of the WSDL that meet the above
> criteria and would like the processor not to fault on the unused binding
> parts.  Here IMO we should not require that the processor faults but
> allow it to fault. This behavior should be driven by the user preference
> rather than from a flat ruling from the spec, IMO. That is, don't put a
> MUST or MUST NOT fail :)
>
> I know this conflicts with a clean conformance spec on the processor
> goal but, usability has more importance here IMO.
>
> I think I am agreeing with Jacek here ..
>
> Regards, Prasad
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Processor conformance: fault on non-conformant input
> Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:34:13 -0500 (EST)
> Resent-From: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:34:06 -0500
> From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
> Reply-To: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
> To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> CC: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040318120010.03a40bd8@localhost>
> <5.1.0.14.2.20040318145802.03bd3438@localhost>
>
>
> Sanjiva,
>
> Oh!  I assumed we'd want to be consistent with our treatment of
> unrecognized required extensions, but I guess we should ask the rest of
the WG.
>
> BACKGROUND
> In the case of required extensions, we do NOT currently require a
> conformant WSDL processor to fault if it encounters an unrecognized
> required extension that appears in a part of the document that the
> processor doesn't need (for example, in a different binding).
>
> THE QUESTION
> If a *part* of a WSDL document is not conformant with the spec, but the
> WSDL processor doesn't need or care about that part (for example, it may
be
> in a different binding that the one being used), should a conformant
> processor be required to fault?
>
> What do others think?
>
>
> At 08:21 AM 3/19/2004 +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> >. . .
> > > and then change the newly added bullet item to:
> > > [[
> > > A conformant WSDL processor MUST fault if a portion of a WSDL document
is
> > > illegal according to this specification and the WSDL processor
attempts to
> > > process that portion.
> > > ]]
> >
> >I don't agree with the text - if a part of a WSDL document is *illegal*
> >then the whole thing should fail. If there are parts that are not
> >understood we already have ways of dealing with it (effectively by
> >invalidating the parent wsdl namespace'd component) but if the doc
> >is illegal (e.g., a broken QName reference exists) then I don't think
> >any processor has any business processing such a broken beast.
> >. . . .
>
> --
> David Booth
> W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 10:18:34 UTC