Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> Done. Results look great!
>
Cool 8-) !!
> I used your sparql results as the baseline since they appear to be much
> closer than the other implementations. Otherwise the "failures" seem
> mostly like nits. You seem to be emitting a safety="false" when the
>
I just checked and fixed the code for the safety dump :-)
> wsdl says safety="true". You also seem to be missing a style <uri>.
>
I also checked for the style attribute but did not find any issue with
my dump code.
I need to investigate a bit more this issue.
Could you tell me which is/are the WSDL document(s) that highlight(s)
this bug ?
> You, Woden, and I all seem to disagree in the GreatH cases precisely
> which soap binding properties are required to appear - I think we've got
> issues open on this topic.
>
One (partial ?) solution may be to rewrite the soap and http schemas to
have a single http and single soap interchange extension point for each
component.
The schema of these wrapper elements will clearly identify which
elements are optional (and should be omitted whenever possible) and
which elements are mandatory.
Today, this is not quite clear as all interchange extensions are optional.
Maybe something like:
<element name="soapBindingProperties">
<complexType><sequence>
<xs:element ref="cmsoap:soapMepDefault" minOccurs="0" />
<xs:element ref="cmsoap:soapModules" minOccurs="0" />
<xs:element ref="cmsoap:soapUnderlyingProtocol" *minOccurs="1"* />
<xs:element ref="cmsoap:soapVersion" *minOccurs="1"* />
</sequence></complexType>
</element>
Received on Monday, 29 May 2006 15:53:16 UTC