- From: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:42:17 -0800
- To: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
- Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>, Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>, WS Description List <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Roberto Chinnici wrote: > > 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. +1. > > 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 >>>> > > -- Umit Yalcinalp Consulting Member of Technical Staff ORACLE Phone: +1 650 607 6154 Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2004 20:27:09 UTC