Re: Processor conformance: fault on non-conformant input

While I did indeed argue for any busted part stopping the processor,
I do understand the (and accept) the argument that one must be able
to skip parts that one doesn't care about. In particular, suppose
there's a .Net binding in a WSDL and one of the QName references in
there is busted. Let's say (just for the sake of argument) that
Oracle doesn't support the .Net binding and so doesn't understand
the elements of the .Net binding namespace and their (bad) cross
referencing habits. 

Do you want the Oracle processor to die on that WSDL (even though
it has a perfectly good SOAP binding say)? If so *how* does it know
it should die without understanding the .Net extension namespace?

I want the IBM processor to handle that WSDL and the SOAP binding
in it just fine and simply skip the proprietary .Net binding which
the IBM processor didn't understand anyway. All of that in a fully
spec-compliant manner.

That requires going with the wording our resident spec lawyer DBooth
recommended.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Umit Yalcinalp" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
Cc: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 8:03 AM
Subject: Re: Processor conformance: fault on non-conformant input


> 
> 
> 
> David Booth wrote:
> 
> >
> > Sanjiva,
> >
> > As far as I know, you are the only one who was in favor of REQUIRING 
> > the processor to fault if there is ANY part of the WSDL document that 
> > is non-conformant, even if that part of the document is not needed 
> > (for example, if it is in a different binding).  So if I've understood 
> > other people's responses, it looks like others agree with the wording 
> > I proposed for the bullet item in section 7.3., which was to change:
> > [[
> > A conformant processor MUST fault if presented with a
> > non-conformant WSDL 2.0 document.
> > ]]
> > 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.
> > ]]
> >
> > (Bear in mind that unless we say something to the contrary,  a 
> > conformant processor MAY fault if an unneeded portion of a WSDL 
> > document is illegal.  Unless we explicitly prohibit such behavior, 
> > then it would be allowed by default.)
> >
> > Are you sure you want to REQUIRE every conformant processor to fault 
> > on any illegal but unneeded portion of the WSDL document?  As I 
> > pointed out in
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Mar/0219.html
> > such a requirement would be a departure from the approach we're taking 
> > for mandatory extensions.
> 
> I am not sure that Sanjiva is alone. Here are my concerns.
> 
> If a processor is not required to process all aspects of the WSDL 
> document, then it is impossible, technically, to find out whether a 
> document is conformant or not, because "conformant" processors may 
> choose to ignore certain portions of a document and end up not reporting 
> errors. Note that by "sheer ignorance" (as it is bliss ;-)), it is 
> equivalent to consume or ignore a specific portion of a document. If it 
> is valid/legal, you are conformant by default, if it is not, well you 
> are allowed to ignore certain portions of it. Nice!
> 
> Based on this definition, a document may not be conformant but the 
> processor will be. So, what is the purpose of defining a conformant 
> processor? A processor that can handle valid WSDL documents and more or 
> a processor that will reject invalid WSDL documents?  It seems that a 
> conformant processor is NOT the processor that may be able to reject a 
> non-conformant document by this change. That is a completely a different 
> beast, maybe a uber-conformant processor that MUST process all the WSDL 
> document and MUST fault if it is a non-conformant document. There is a 
> need to define such a processor category if our conformant processor 
> definition is not targeted to do this. I was under the impression that  
> we wanted to align the conformance of a processor to align 
> with/determine a document's conformance.
> 
> What I don't like in your change of definition is that "how a portion" 
> is defined for processing is very opaque and unfortunately meaningless 
> unless we define exactly what it is.  It is equivalent to, IMO, to 
> saying nothing at all. The problem is defining what that subset is, 
> namely the set of "portions" of a WSDL document that a conformant 
> processor MUST process. Unless we define this set precisely, which is a 
> "profile" by the way, the conformant processor definition, IMO, is not 
> going to be that definitive.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> --umit
> 
> Ps. I would like to also point out that there are two terms used in the 
> processor conformance section, 8.3. "fail" (bullet 4) and fault (in 
> other bullets). The definition of what "faulting" means (immediately 
> cease processing) is explored only in bullet 5. I suggest moving it to 
> bullet 2 as an editorial change, so that the definition comes before the 
> usage.
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > At 09:17 PM 3/22/2004 +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> >
> >> OK so what's the verdict on this thread? David Booth can you
> >> please give a summary and recommendation?
> >>
> >> THanks,
> >>
> >> Sanjiva.
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> Umit Yalcinalp                                  
> Consulting Member of Technical Staff
> ORACLE
> Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          
> Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2004 09:56:58 UTC