Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150

I'd be ok with saying element="#any" means any number of
any elements. That has a natural binding in the SOAP case
to "stuff it inside <Body>."

Then we can indeed describe any SOAP message.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>; "Tom Jordahl"
<tomj@macromedia.com>
Cc: "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 5:53 AM
Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150


>
> Jacek,
>
> It seems odd ( to me at least ) that WSDL not allow me to describe
> messages that are clearly OK per the SOAP spec.
>
> Gudge
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
> Sent: 23 March 2004 06:20
> To: Tom Jordahl
> Cc: 'WS Description List'
> Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
>
>
> Tom, I originally meant the issue 146 as really allowing anything in the
> message, but I will have no problem with constraining that to "any
> single element", it suits the usecase I have in mind here - a
> content-based router endpoint that receives any message.
>
> This way the spec will be clearer and more consistent and the
> restriction to a single element in SOAP Body doesn't seem too bad; noone
> knows how to handle multiple elements there anyway. 8-)
>
>                    Jacek Kopecky
>
>                    Systinet Corporation
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 23:07, Tom Jordahl wrote:
> > I actually never believed we were discussing (4), I had always assumed
> (3).
> > I am also against the idea that you can get away with sticking
> *anything* in
> > to the message.  Now I understand why Umit is so worked up. :-)
> >
> > I propose we clarify the meaning of "#any" to be explicit that we are
> > specifying "any element", not "any stuff you want".
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tom Jordahl
> > Macromedia Server Development
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roberto Chinnici [mailto:Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM]
> > Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 4:36 PM
> > To: Arthur Ryman
> > Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana; Martin Gudgin; Tom Jordahl; WS Description
> List;
> > www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
> >
> > I find the current syntax nice and readble in three of the four cases:
> >
> >    1)  element="myns:Foo"
> >    2)  element="#none"
> >    3)  element="#any" (where "#any" means "any element")
> >
> > It's the fourth case, i.e.
> >    4)  element="#any" (where "#any" means "anything, any kind of
> content")
> > that is problematic.
> >
> > I'm actually having second thoughts on conflating (3) and (4).
> >
> > I think that Umit has a point when she says that by adopting (4) we've
> > moved away from an element-based content model representation.
> >
> > Moreover, given that some bindings might have restrictions on the
> > allowable payloads for a message, it seems important to distinguish
> > between (3) and (4). Otherwise an application written to the abstract
> > layer of WSDL will feel authorized, upon encountering a message
> > definition which specified element="#any", to pass arbitrary content
> > around, including content of a kind that will be systematically
> rejected
> > by the binding in use. Then we'd fall back again in the trap of
> writing
> > applications to a specific binding rather than to the abstract
> interface.
> >
> > Roberto
> >
> >
> > Arthur Ryman wrote:
> > >
> > > Sanjiva,
> > >
> > > The attribute @element formerly refered to the QName of an element
> > > (GED). However, now it may not refer to an element. In fact, the
> message
> > > content might be a simple type, or anything else, including nothing.
> So
> > > it is a minor misnomer to call the attribute @element. However, most
> of
> > > the time it will refer to an element. Logically, the attribute
> describes
> > > the message content, which is often, but not always, an element.
> > >
> > > 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/
> > >
> > >
> > > *"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>*
> > > Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> > >
> > > 03/16/2004 10:02 PM
> > >
> > >
> > > To
> > > "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Tom Jordahl"
> > > <tomj@macromedia.com>, Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
> > > cc
> > > "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> > > Subject
> > > Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm confused .. I thought we're talking about special values to
> > > assign to the operation/(input|output)/@element attribute to
> > > indicate any content (#any) or no content (#empty).
> > >
> > > What does this have to do with changing the name of the attribute?
> > >
> > > Sanjiva.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
> > > To: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>; "Arthur Ryman"
> <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
> > > Cc: "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 1:43 AM
> > > Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
> > >
> > >
> > > Have you implemented it already? ;-)
> > >
> > > Gudge
> > >
> > > P.S. I've always thought it mildly amusing to have an attribute
> whose
> > > name is element ( or vice versa ) ;-)
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> > > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tom Jordahl
> > > Sent: 16 March 2004 11:01
> > > To: 'Arthur Ryman'
> > > Cc: 'WS Description List'
> > > Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We just changed the name of this attribute to "element".
> > >
> > > -1 to changing it AGAIN.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom Jordahl
> > > Macromedia Server Development
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 1:05 PM
> > > To: Tom Jordahl
> > > Cc: 'Jonathan Marsh'; 'WS Description List';
> > > www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> > > Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Correction to my note:
> > >
> > > s/elementReference/element/
> > >
> > > Same comment applies. It's not an element anymore.
> > >
> > > 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/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>
> > > Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> > >
> > > 03/16/2004 09:30 AM
> > >
> > > To
> > >
> > > "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "'WS Description List'"
> > > <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> > >
> > > cc
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Subject
> > >
> > > RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jonathan,
> > >
> > > You meant to say "elementReference is the name of a type so it
> > > would NOT appear in the syntax"
> > >
> > > Right?
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom Jordahl
> > > Macromedia Server Development
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> > > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> > > Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 4:48 PM
> > > To: WS Description List
> > > Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
> > >
> > > elementReference is the name of a type so it would appear in the
> > > syntax.  I like messageBody better too.  Or I suppose we could just
> get
> > > rid of the reference altogether, right?
> > >
> > > <xs:attribute name="element" >
> > >       <xs:simpleType>
> > >               <xs:union memberTypes="xs:QName">
> > >                       <xs:simpleType>
> > >                               <xs:restriction base="xs:token">
> > >                                       <xs:enumeration
> > > value="#any" />
> > >                                       <xs:enumeration
> > > value="#empty" />
> > >                               </xs:restriction>
> > >                       </xs:simpleType>
> > >               </xs:union>
> > >       </xs:simpleType>
> > > </xs:attribute>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 12:58 PM
> > > To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
> > > Cc: Jacek Kopecky; Jonathan Marsh; WS Description List;
> > > www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
> > >
> > >
> > > Sanjiva,
> > >
> > > The XML Schema looks fine except for a couple of minor errors.
> > > Here's a corrected version:
> > >
> > >       <xs:attribute name="element" type="elementReference" />
> > >
> > >       <xs:simpleType name="elementReference">
> > >               <xs:union memberTypes="xs:QName">
> > >                       <xs:simpleType>
> > >                               <xs:restriction base="xs:token">
> > >                                       <xs:enumeration
> > > value="#any" />
> > >                                       <xs:enumeration
> > > value="#empty" />
> > >                               </xs:restriction>
> > >                       </xs:simpleType>
> > >               </xs:union>
> > >       </xs:simpleType>
> > >
> > >
> > > However, I dislike the name of the attribute, elementReference,
> > > since the whole point of introducing it was to allow the case where
> > > there is no element reference. How about @messageBody or
> @bodyContent
> > > instead?
> > >
> > > 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/
> > >
> > > "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
> > > Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> > >
> > > 03/11/2004 10:50 PM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To
> > >
> > > "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>, "Jonathan Marsh"
> > > <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
> > >
> > > cc
> > >
> > > "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> > >
> > > Subject
> > >
> > > Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Looks good to me too .. however I'll let Arthur indicate an IBM
> > > position as I can barely spell schiema let alone make value
> > > judgements about the goodness of using unions.
> > >
> > > Sanjiva.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
> > > To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
> > > Cc: "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 8:58 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
> > >
> > >
> > >  >
> > >  > I applaud the elegance of this proposal. 8-)
> > >  > I hope it will be accepted.
> > >  >
> > >  > Jacek
> > >  >
> > >  > On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 18:55, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> > >  > > Issues 146 [.1] and 150 [.2] were inadvertently left off the
> > > FTF agenda.
> > >  > > Sorry my bad.  Here's a simple proposal for addressing these
> > > issues,
> > >  > > assuming we find merit in adding this functionality.
> > >  > >
> > >  > > Issue 146 Should WSDL be able to describe an operation with
> > > *anything*
> > >  > > in the message? [.1]
> > >  > >
> > >  > > Issue 150 Indicating empty bodies [.2]
> > >  > >
> > >  > > When using XML SchemaS, The element attribute points to a
> > > QName of a
> > >  > > GED, preventing either empty bodies, or unconstrained
> > > content.  Special
> > >  > > values of the element attribute could indicate these
> > > conditions.
> > >  > >
> > >  > > Status quo:
> > >  > >   <xs:attribute name="element" type="xs:QName"
> > > use="optional" />
> > >  > >
> > >  > > Proposal:
> > >  > >   <xs:attribute name="element" type="elementReference"
> > > use="optional" />
> > >  > >
> > >  > >   <xs:simpleType name="elementReference">
> > >  > >     <xs:union>
> > >  > >       <xs:simpleType memberTypes="xs:QName">
> > >  > >         <xs:restriction base="xs:token">
> > >  > >           <xs:enumeration value="#any"/>
> > >  > >           <xs:enumeration value="#empty"/>
> > >  > >         </xs:restriction>
> > >  > >       </xs:simpleType>
> > >  > >     </xs:union>
> > >  > >   </xs:simpleType>
> > >  > >
> > >  > > (I hope I have got that syntax right.  Should be enough to
> > > spark
> > >  > > discussion anyway...)
> > >  > >
> > >  > > [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x146
> > >  > > [.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x150
> > >  > >
> >

Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2004 01:59:52 UTC