W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2006

Re: WSDL 2.0 Component Model Interchange Format - HTTP Error Code Format

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 13:26:08 -0400
To: Youenn Fablet <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, Tony Rogers <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF8E2C0C6F.73F062A7-ON8525717D.005F2F84-8525717D.005FCD84@ca.ibm.com>

I agree that wrapping the HTTP and SOAP extensions would make it clearer 
which were OPTIONAL when the binding was engaged.

However, as Jonathan pointed out, that would just make the error more 
visible in the interchange format. I think perhaps the Part 2 spec could 
be improved to be clearer that the optionality or requiredness depends on 
the binding actually in use.

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

Youenn Fablet <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
05/29/2006 11:52 AM

Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, Jean-Jacques Moreau 
<jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, Tony Rogers <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>, 
Re: WSDL 2.0 Component Model Interchange Format - HTTP Error Code  Format

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 
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">
    <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" />
Received on Monday, 29 May 2006 17:26:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:58 UTC