- From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:33:24 -0400
- To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Matt Long" <mlong@mvsquared.net>, "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Hi Gudge, all: Are you saying that if I extend an interface "I" in namespace "foo" it isn't good enough to import "foo", but I also MUST import any namespaces used by components inside "I"? In other words, the child WSDL below would NOT be legal without <import namespace="http://NSGrandparent"/>? WSDL for "http://NSChild": --------- <import namespace="http://NSParent"/> <interface name="child" extends="p:parent" xmlns:p="http://NSParent"> ... </interface> --------- WSDL for "http://NSParent": --------- <import namespace="http://NSGrandparent"/> <interface name="parent" extends="g:grandparent" xmlns:g="http://NSGrandparent"> ... </interface> --------- If so this seems a bit annoying. Does schema work this way? --Glen > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Martin Gudgin > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 1:15 PM > To: Matt Long; David Booth > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org > Subject: RE: Contradictions regarding transitivity of wsdl:import > > > +1 > > Gudge > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Long [mailto:mlong@mvsquared.net] > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 3:58 AM > To: David Booth; Martin Gudgin > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org > Subject: RE: Contradictions regarding transitivity of wsdl:import > > Correct me if I am wrong, but the value of wsdl:import is that you can > utilize a reference to a different target namespace than the importing > document. Therefore, in the list of QName encoded with > 'extends' may be > contain a QName that references a different target namespace than the > importing document such that wsdl:import is required. > > If A inherits B inherits C, where A imports B imports C, it seems > imperative > to understand which target namespaces A, B, C belong, and which > documents > wsdl:import which namespaces. > > Example 1: > If 'A' imports 'B' imports 'C': then for 'A' inherits 'B' inherits 'C' > to > exist: > > 'A' must wsdl:import *both* 'B' and 'C' namespaces. > > > Example 1 is actually non-transitive (even if it does look that way) > because > *if* 'A' does not wsdl:import 'C' namespace, then only 'A' > inherits 'B' > (B > does not inherit C with respect to 'A', which is what makes in > non-transitive) > > >From [1] > > "...Specifically, it can be used to import components from WSDL > descriptions > that do not share a target namespace with the importing document. > Components > in directly imported descriptions are part of the component > model of the > importing description. Directly imported means that component > importation is > not transitive; components imported by one of the imported > documents are > not > available to the original importing document unless the are imported > directly by that document. ..." > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/#imports > > > -- > Matt Long > MV Squared Technologies > mlong@mvsquared.net > 901-848-2640 > > > --------- Original Message -------- > From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org> > To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com> > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org > Subject: RE: Contradictions regarding transitivity of wsdl:import > Date: 13/04/05 22:15 > > > > > > > Hi Gudge, > > > > I understand that the spec was intended to make wsdl:import be > > non-transitive, but I'm not getting that when I try to follow the > rules > > that are stated for the component model. Can you point me to where > I'm > > going wrong? > > > > Section 2.1.3, in the row for the {interfaces} property > (for example) > > says that its value is: > > [[ > > The set of Interface components corresponding to all the interface > > element information items in the [children] of the > description element > > information item, if any, plus any included or imported Interface > > components (see 4. Modularizing WSDL descriptions) > > ]] > > So in the "A imports B imports C" example, let's > assume that > the > > {interfaces} property for A, B and C are the sets Ai, Bi and Ci, > > respectively. Further assume that I already know the set Ci, and I > now > > want to determine Bi (i.e., the {interfaces} property for B). > > > > According to the section 2.1.3 rule excerpted above, I > would conclude > > that the set Bi consists of the union of {"The set of Interface > > components corresponding to all the interface element information > items > > in the [children] of the description element information > item" of > B} > and > > Ci. (I.e., Ci is a subset of Bi.) Correct? Is Ci a subset of Bi? > If > > not, please explain why not. If Ci *is* a subset of Bi, then when A > > imports B, by the same rule Bi would be a subset of Ai, > which implies > > that Ci would also be a subset of Ai. > > > > In other words, I don't see how this rule is differentiating between > the > > Ci subset of Bi, and the rest of the Bi set. You're saying that > "the > > components defined in B are in one namespace whereas the > components B > > imports from C are in another namespace", but I don't see where > this > > namespace differentiation is reflected in the component model. > AFAICT, > > the {interfaces} property for B is simply a set that > includes Ci as a > > subset, per the section 2.1.3 rule excerpted above. > > > > Can you explain further, what you think the rule should be > (or how you > > think I should interpret it differently) for computing the value of > the > > {interfaces} property? > > > > > > On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 14:30, Martin Gudgin wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org > > > > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of > David Booth > > > > Sent: 13 April 2005 10:38 > > > > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org > > > > Subject: Contradictions regarding transitivity of > wsdl:import > > > > > > > > > > > > Statements in Part 1 about the meaning of > wsdl:import appear > to > be > > > > contradictory. On one hand, sec 4.2 says that wsdl:import > is > not > > > > transitive. On the other hand, sec 2.1.1 says there is no > difference > > > > between included/imported components and > components derived > > > > directly from a > > > > WSDL 2.0 document, and this logically leads to > import being > > > > transitive. > > > > > > I don't understand why you would draw this conclusion. The only > > > difference between imported and included conmponents is that > included > > > components are in one namespace and imported components are in > another. > > > > > > > > > > > Suppose WSDL document A imports WSDL document B, which > imports > WSDL > > > > document C, which neither includes nor imports anything. > The > > > > components of > > > > C will be only the components derived directly > from the XML > > > > Infoset of > > > > C. Since B imports C, clearly the set of components for B > > > > will include the > > > > set of components for C. > > > > > > > So far so good. But A now imports > > > > B, so what > > > > components will A have? We have already established that > the > set of > > > > components of B includes the set of components from C as a > > > > subset. > > > > > > wsdl:import like xs:import is namespace based. The components > defined > in > > > C and not in the same namespace as the compontents defined in B > and > so > > > only the components from B are imported into A. > > > > > > > Since > > > > there is no distinction made between the subset of > components > that > > > > originated in C and the other components, the > components of > A > must > > > > therefore also include the components of C as a subset. > This > > > > contradicts > > > > the statement that "wsdl:import is not > transitive". > > > > > > > > The basic problem here is that the spec is > referring to the > > > > *components* of > > > > the imported document. Those components only exist if we > > > > interpret the > > > > meaning of the imported document according to the WSDL 2.0 > > > > specification, > > > > at which point there is no way to know whether those > imported > > > > components > > > > originated in the imported document or another document > > > > (transitively). > > > > > > Yes there is. As noted above the components defined in B are in > one > > > namespace whereas the components B imports from C are > in another > > > namespace. The wsdl:import in A specifies that it is importing > > > components in the namespace of B. > > > > > > > > > > > Here are the relevant excerpts from the spec: > > > > > > > > Part 1 sec 4.2 Importing Descriptions > > > > > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20 > > > > .html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#imports > > > > second paragraph says: > > > > [[ > > > > Components in directly imported descriptions are > part of the > > > > component > > > > model of the importing description. Directly > imported means > > > > that component > > > > importation is not transitive; components > imported by one of > > > > the imported > > > > documents are NOT available to the original importing > > > > document unless the > > > > are imported directly by that document. > > > > ]] > > > > > > > > But section 2.1.1 The Description Component > > > > > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20 > > > > > .html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Description_details > > > > sixth paragraph says: > > > > [[ > > > > The set of interfaces/binding/services/etc. > available in the > > > > Description > > > > component include those that are defined within the > component > > > > itself and > > > > those that are imported and/or included. Note that at the > > > > component model > > > > level, there is no distinction between directly defined > > > > components vs. > > > > imported/included components. > > > > ]] > > > > Furthermore, sec 2.1.3 Mapping Description's XML > Representation > to > > > > Component Properties > > > > > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20 > > > > > .html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Description_Mapping > > > > also shows no distinction between components that > originated > > > > in the WSDL > > > > 2.0 document and components that originated in an > > > > included/imported document. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > David Booth > > > > W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard > > > > Telephone: +1.617.253.1273 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > David Booth > > W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________ > This message has been sent via webmail. > Please forward unsolicited email (spam) to... > abuse@hostonce.com > > > >
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2005 17:33:33 UTC