Re: WSDL 2.0 adjuncts assertions

Lawrence,

For now, how about just tagging the lead in sentence, 

<assert ...>When formulating the HTTP message to be transmitted, the HTTP 
request method used MUST be the following: </assert>

i.e. not the following list.

An assertion can refer to other definitions, i.e. it is not necessarily 
completely self-contained. For other problems, post to the list and 
suggest an alternate wording if one occurs to you. We'll let the editors 
do some work :-)

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
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, text: 4169395063@fido.ca



Lawrence Mandel/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA 
01/09/2006 09:23 PM
Please respond to
woden-dev


To
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
cc
woden-dev@ws.apache.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject
Re: WSDL 2.0 adjuncts assertions







Arthur, 

Sorry about the problems with the patch. I was unaware of the DTD 
describing assert. I included lists where the assertion required the 
inclusion of the list. For example, 

When formulating the HTTP message to be transmitted, the HTTP request 
method used MUST be the following: 
For a given Interface Operation component, if there is a Binding Operation 
component whose {interface operation} property matches the component in 
question and its {http method} property has a value, then the value of the 
{http method} property. 
Otherwise, the value of the Binding component's {http method default}, if 
any. 
Otherwise, if a {safety} property as defined in 3.1 Operation safety is 
present on the bound Interface Operation component and has a value of 
"true", the value "GET". 
Otherwise, it is an ERROR.

How would you like to handle these assertions? Would you like me to 
identify these types of assertions with a posting to the list? 

For now I'll remove these problem assertions and resubmit the patch. 

Lawrence Mandel



Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM 
01/09/2006 08:56 PM 


To
Lawrence Mandel/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA 
cc
woden-dev@ws.apache.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
Subject
Re: WSDL 2.0 adjuncts assertionsLink







Lawrence, 

I'm rejecting this patch because it fails XML validation in several 
places. We need to get the build script running on your machine so you can 
validate the changes before submitting them. Let's work on this tomorrow. 

The problem is mainly that the assertions are too big, e.g. they include 
lists. The allowable content for an <assert> is defined in the DTD, 
xmlspec.dtd. An assertion should be a fairly direct statement. We 
therefore may need to do some editng on the spec to make the assertions 
simpler, e.g. introduce some definitions to replace long clauses. 

Also, you duplicated the ID MultipartStyle-5036 

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
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, text: 4169395063@fido.ca 


Lawrence Mandel/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
01/09/2006 06:28 PM 


To
www-ws-desc@w3.org 
cc
woden-dev@ws.apache.org 
Subject
WSDL 2.0 adjuncts assertions









I've made my way through the wsdl20-adjuncts.xml file and identified 
assertions within the file. I've included a patch for the file that 
contains these assertions in this post. 

Arthur - Please disregard my previous question about the generated files. 
I was able to get the build partly working and understand that the 
component and document assertions files are generated from the wsdl20 and 
wsdl20-adjuncts files. 

Thanks, 

Lawrence Mandel

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: woden-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: woden-dev-help@ws.apache.org