- From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 15:56:26 -0400
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>, John Kaputin <KAPUTIN@uk.ibm.com>
- Cc: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF2A937F17.09E999D6-ON852572CF.006C6A4C-852572CF.006D8977@ca.ibm.com>
Jacek, I believe the rationale is that the binding is SOAP but it just happens to reuse some properties defined in the HTTP binding. I am including John who can give his opinion. Arthur Ryman, PhD, AoT, DE Process and Portfolio Management, Rational Division phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077 assistant: +1-905-413-3831 (T/L: 318-8867) fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920 mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 05/02/2007 02:42 PM To Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA cc WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org> Subject a few Woden problems Hi Arthur, I uncovered a few more Woden problems. If I'm emailing you improperly, please let me know who to address instead.* 1) (design) the SOAP binding reuses HTTP properties. In Woden, the reused properties are returned when looking at the SOAP extensions (for instance SOAPBindingExtensions.isHttpCookies(), and all similar occurrences). I believe this is counterintuitive - when I'm looking for the value of the {http cookies} property on a binding, it's defined by a WHTTP extension attribute and it should be available under that namespace. Why do I care? The RDF binding maps {http cookies} into the same thing whether it is on an HTTP binding or on a SOAP binding, and I must check two different extensions to get the value of this property. SOAPBindingExtensions.isHttpCookies(), if it's there at all, should IMHO be syntactic sugar for HTTPBindingExtensions.isHttpCookies() on the same binding, but as it is, I don't even get HTTPBindingExtensions on a SOAP binding. The type of a binding should not dictate the namespaces of allowed extensions, or under what namespaces one can find some properties. I don't think the spec intends that. 2) (may get obsoleted if you agree on the point above) SOAPBindingOperationExtensions does not have isHttpLocationIgnoreUncited even though the SOAP binding seems to import this property (cf. first bullet in section 5) Currently, Woden does not give me the value of this property on SOAP bindings. 3) InterfaceImpl.getAllInterfaceOperations and getAllInterfaceFaults are not quite recursive, they only go one level of interface extension deep. This manifests in the flickr test-suite WSDL file when trying to access the InterfaceOperation of the BindingOperation for "flickr.groups.pools.add" - the method getInterfaceOperation() returns null because the actual operation is too deep in the hierarchy of extended interfaces. Fix: in both InterfaceImpl.getDerivedInterface*, change getInterface* to getAllInterface* - this can get into an infinite loop if a circular interface extension is not detected as an error first. For the purpose of finishing the RDF mapping, I have a work-around for 1), I fixed 3) in my copy of Woden, but I can't easily fix 2). Best regards, Jacek *P.S: I don't want to have to subscribe for a mailing list or register in a bug reporting system, though, to be able to submit these questions.
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 19:56:30 UTC