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

Re: Parts 1 and 2 Treat Defaults Inconsistently with Eachother

From: John Kaputin (gmail) <jakaputin@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 19:09:39 +0100
Message-ID: <4c2ae8f80605241109n552f5c2bmf85ea1b74a3be441@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
from a parsing perspective the Part 1 approach is simpler, where the default
attributes don't appear as properties in the Component model but are just
used to compute the actual values of the related properties. In Apache Woden
we have not yet considered WSDL serialization from the Component model, but
I think what you are proposing makes sense. If a WSDL 2.0 processor is able
to programmatically create the Component model or modify a Component model
parsed from a WSDL document and then needs to serialize that Component
model, any styleDefault attribute should be based on a {style default}
property in the model. Otherwise, the processor has to either ignore the
styleDefault attribute or guess it from the actual {style} properties.

John Kaputin.

On 5/19/06, Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> In Part 1 the <interface> element has a styleDefault attribute but there
> is no corresponding property in the component model. The styleDefault
> attribute is only used to determine the {style} property on the Interface
> Operation component via the XML mapping rules
> However, in Part 2 there are four default attributes and they do get
> mapped to component model properties:
> {soap mep default}
> {http transfer coding default}
> {http method default}
> {http query parameter separator default}
> These default properties are matched up with corresponding non-default
> properties on the component model:
> {soap mep}
> {http transfer coding}
> {http method}
> {http query parameter separator}
> The "actual" values of the property in the message are defined by the
> binding rules, not the XML mapping. I find this confusing. It also has the
> disadvantage that it removes the rules from the component model  so the
> component model builder can't evaluate them. It just copies the XML
> attributes into the component model. Instead a message builder has to have
> this logic.
> The Part 1 approach makes the component model simpler since the "actual"
> value of the property is computed and stored in the component model.
> However, the Part 2 approach is also good because it makes WSDL generation
> simpler. For example, suppose you have the same style on several operations.
> It would be simpler to specify the default in the component model and
> serialize the WSDL with the style ommitted on the operations that matched
> the default.
> I propose that we improve the spec by using the best aspects of Part 1 and
> 2, and make them consistent. This requires the following changes:
> 1.In Part 1, add a {style default} property to the Interface component.
> 2. In Part 2, specify the rules for the properties in the XML mapping
> instead of the message binding, e.g. {http method} is determined by the
> actual value of the attribute if present, or the {http method default} if
> present, or is GET if the operation is safe, and it POST otherwise. This
> way, e.g. {http method} is the actual value used in the message.
> 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
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 18:32:09 UTC

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