- From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:22:53 -0500
- To: Lawrence Mandel <lmandel@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: woden-dev@ws.apache.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF3C1BFEF6.0550EF71-ON852570F2.004E699E-852570F2.004EFC82@ca.ibm.com>
Lawrence, Thx. I've committed your patch. BTW, your note had two patched attached. The correct one was generated Jan. 10 even though your note says Jan. 9. I guess this is a timezone glitch. As you mentioned, some of the assertions are really about messages and exchanges so I'll have to add those tables. I also enabled assertion display. Recall that we disabled this in our CR versions. FYI, assertion display is controlled by some XSLT parameters, like so: <xslt in="wsdl20.xml" out="wsdl20.html" style="xmlspec-wsdl.xsl" force="yes"> <param name="status" expression="ed-copy" /> <param name="showAssertions" expression="true" /> </xslt> <xslt in="wsdl20-adjuncts.xml" out="wsdl20-adjuncts.html" style="xmlspec-wsdl.xsl" force="yes"> <param name="status" expression="ed-copy" /> <param name="showAssertions" expression="true" /> </xslt> If status is ed-copy then the assertions get highlighted in pink in-line. if showAssertions is true then the assetion table appendix gets included. 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 10:58 PM To www-ws-desc@w3.org cc woden-dev@ws.apache.org Subject Re: WSDL 2.0 adjuncts assertions Done. Here is the revised patch. Lawrence Mandel Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 01/09/2006 09:39 PM To woden-dev@ws.apache.org cc woden-dev@ws.apache.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org Subject 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
Attachments
- application/octet-stream attachment: wsdl20-adjuncts.xml.patch
- application/octet-stream attachment: wsdl20-adjuncts.xml.patch
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2006 14:23:10 UTC