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

RE: [soapbuilders] WSDL Interop issue

Expand Messages
  • Matt Long
    I guess it depends on what problem your trying to solve. Since you are referring directly to WSDL interop, then it s going to fall into the implementation
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 27, 2001
      I guess it depends on what problem your trying to solve. Since you are
      referring directly to WSDL interop, then it's going to fall into the
      "implementation specific" category for the reason...
      <snip>
      > If you read the spec literally then it seems you are to only look at
      > input.name attribute only if operation is NOT unique.
      </snip>

      Some will undoubtly use the forementioned logic.

      If you want to break interop on this issue, it's a gutsy call (as we have no
      idea of what the state of existing WSDLs will be in near future).

      Do you have an opinion from Eric or Sanjiva?


      -Matt

      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: keithba@... [mailto:keithba@...]
      > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 5:36 PM
      > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [soapbuilders] WSDL Interop issue
      >
      >
      > The following WSDL interop issue came up recently. Yann summed it up
      > well in a recent email, so I'll just quote from him:
      >
      > In order to correlate an <operation> that appears under <portType>
      > and <binding> WSDL 1.1 says to use the operation name attribute:
      > <operation name=" ">. Furthermore, if the operation name attribute
      > is not unique (eg. in the case of overloaded methods) then it says
      > to use the name attribute on the <input> and <output> elements.
      >
      > So what do I do if operation name attribute is unique *and* the
      > <input> and/or <output> name attributes do not match.
      >
      > If you read the spec literally then it seems you are to only look at
      > input.name attribute only if operation is NOT unique. However it
      > seems bad to ignore the fact that they are indeed different.
      >
      > For example is the following legal where input:name is not
      > consistent between the two:
      >
      > <portType name="LiteralSoap">
      > <operation name="echoString">
      > <input message="s0:echoStringSoapIn" name="echoString" />
      > <output message="s0:echoStringSoapOut" />
      > </operation>
      > </portType>
      > <binding name="LiteralSoap">
      > <operation name="echoString">
      > <input name="echoStringRequest"/>
      > <output/>
      > </operation>
      > </binding>
      >
      > Also this case where name attribute is simply not specified in the
      > second case, meaning use the default which is echoStringRequest,
      > meaning they are again different:
      >
      > <portType name="LiteralSoap">
      > <operation name="echoString">
      > <input message="s0:echoStringSoapIn" name="echoString" />
      > <output message="s0:echoStringSoapOut" />
      > </operation>
      > </portType>
      > <binding name="LiteralSoap">
      > <operation name="echoString">
      > <input />
      > <output/>
      > </operation>
      > </binding>
      >
      > We believe that the above two WSDL fragments are illegal and should
      > be rejected. Does everyone concur?
      >
      >
      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > ---------------------~-->
      > Make IT and computer Web sites more customer-friendly
      > Get a $10 AMAZON.COM Gift Certificate
      > http://us.click.yahoo.com/5BW3QC/Hd6CAA/ddnFAA/W6uqlB/TM
      > --------------------------------------------------------------
      > -------~->
      >
      > -----------------------------------------------------------------
      > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
      > discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please
      > stay on-topic.
      >
      > 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.