- From: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:39:08 -0800
- To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Cc: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>, Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>, WS Description List <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
But then you get back to the pitfall I mentioned earlier, i.e. that some bindings will only support one element, making an application that tried to pass more than one element inadvertently binding-specific. So if we handle this case at all (we could call it (5)), we should do so using extensibility. Roberto Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > 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 16:48:47 UTC