Re: a few Woden problems

Arthur, the test case is in the test suite, FlickrHTTP-1G.
In fact, that's how I discovered it, my RDF mapping was giving a null
pointer exception on trying to traverse from a binding operation to its
interface operation with this file.
Jacek

On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 15:56 -0400, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> 
> Jacek, 
> 
> 3) that's a bug. Those calls should completely traverse the
> inheritence hierarchy. Can you please contribute your test case to the
> W3C Test Suite? Thx. 
> 
> 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> 
> 
> 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 21:51:01 UTC