RE: [soapbuilders] WSDL bugs
- 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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Hong [mailto:thong@...]
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 6:01 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] WSDL bugs
> 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
> 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?
> 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
> 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
> guide for WSDL treatment.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rosimildo daSIlva [mailto:rosimildo@...]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 2:23 PM
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > 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:
> > email@example.com
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to