Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [soapbuilders] WSDL bugs

Expand Messages
  • Matt Long
    This looks like good WSDL to me. Question...should nillable be included in the element schema definition? The reason I ask is that the next version of the
    Message 1 of 7 , May 25, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      This looks like good WSDL to me. Question...should "nillable" be included
      in the element schema definition?

      The reason I ask is that the next version of the Phalanx processor(s) will
      check this.

      -Matt

      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Tony Hong [mailto:thong@...]
      > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 6:01 PM
      > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] WSDL bugs
      >
      >
      > Hello,
      >
      > Actually, the current testing document
      > (http://www.xmethods.net/soapbuilders/proposal.html) *does*
      > have a link to
      > a sample WSDL file (per the previous iteration on this
      > thread), but it is
      > really meant to be a form of documentation, and compliance to
      > it in this
      > first round of testing is not mandatory. As Bob mentions, the
      > reality of
      > round 1 was that no single document was technically
      > sufficient for all of
      > the participating implementations, because there was just too much
      > variation - 1999 vs 2001, differing soapaction forms, etc etc.
      >
      > A future round of testing (perhaps the next one?) will
      > involve mandatory
      > compliance to an externally defined WSDL, as has also been discussed
      > previously. Note that this does not mean that a client must
      > dynamically
      > process WSDL, nor does a server have to dynamically generate
      > it, just that
      > their envelopes have to conform to the form indicated in the wsdl.
      >
      > How does this one work?
      >
      > http://www.xmethods.net/tmodels/InteropTest.wsdl
      >
      > It is based on 2001; also, the value of soapAction has changed from
      > "urn:soapinterop" to "http://soapinterop.org/" . Also, note
      > that this doc
      > will surely expand if all of the 2001 primitives types are
      > brought into the
      > test.
      >
      > It takes the form of an interface WSDL doc, so there is no
      > <service> section
      > defined in it. Everything up to <binding> is defined in the
      > interface doc.
      > This also happens to match the form advanced by the UDDI best
      > practices
      > guide for WSDL treatment.
      >
      > Comments?
      >
      > Thanks,
      > Tony
      >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: Rosimildo daSIlva [mailto:rosimildo@...]
      > > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 2:23 PM
      > > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] WSDL bugs
      > >
      > >
      > > --- Andrew Layman <yahoo@...> wrote:
      > > > Thanks. Maybe this would be a good time to do what
      > > > we've talked a little
      > > > bit about in the past: settling on a single master
      > > > copy of the interop test
      > > > WSDL document?
      > > >
      > >
      > > I guess everybody would benefit from this. It has been
      > > an end-less number of inconsistencies from all these
      > > WSDL files describing the *same* web service.
      > > Something is not right here.
      > >
      > > Rosimildo.
      > >
      > >
      > > __________________________________________________
      > > Do You Yahoo!?
      > > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
      > > http://auctions.yahoo.com/
      > >
      > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.