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

RE: [soapbuilders] Literal, wsdl.exe, and SOAP Arrays

Expand Messages
  • Matt Long
    My understanding of WSDL Sec 2.2 for encoded types does not require that the schema in types guarantee a complete literal definition of the referenced type,
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 1, 2002
      My understanding of WSDL Sec 2.2 for encoded types does not require that the
      schema in 'types' guarantee a complete literal definition of the referenced
      type, that using such type as literal (for SOAP encoded arrays) would not be
      a validating schema for the type itself (assuming generalized convention for
      type="prefix:ArrayOfXXX"). I would also tend to believe that the schema of
      a literal element or type (of which literal 'type' does have some issues)
      must be a validating schema for the element/type. Given the two
      aforementioned items the 'typical' ArrayOfXXX usage for encoded 'type' would
      not guarantee a valid schema for a literal 'type.'...just my opinion.

      Thoughts?

      Thx,

      -Matt Long
      Phalanx Systems, LLC



      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Keith Ballinger [mailto:keithba@...]
      > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 1:38 AM
      > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com; soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Literal, wsdl.exe, and SOAP Arrays
      >
      >
      > This is a great question!
      >
      > Short answer: I think it doesn't break the letter of the WSDL
      > spec to do this, but I do feel that it's breaking the spirit.
      >
      > Long answer: array type is an encoding-ism. Since doc/lit is
      > by definition the absense of an encoding, I'm not sure what
      > it would mean, semantically, that derives from SOAP array.
      > doc/lit means that the schema is the be all and end all of
      > the wire format, and the implementation is completely
      > uncoupled from that.
      >
      > I get the feeling I don't completely understand what you are
      > trying to do. Could you explain more what you are attempting
      > to describe in the WSDL, and how you want that to map to a
      > wire format?
      >
      > Thanks!
      > Keith
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: sound0 [mailto:brad_taylor@...]
      > Sent: Thu 1/31/2002 1:16 PM
      > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      > Cc:
      > Subject: [soapbuilders] Literal, wsdl.exe, and SOAP Arrays
      >
      >
      > Hello all:
      > I have a doc/literal wsdl that defines a type that
      > derives from SOAP
      > array (as descibed in WSDL sec 2.2). When I try to
      > consume it using
      > the .Net wsdl.exe, I get the following error:
      >
      > "Referenced type
      > 'http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/:Array'
      > valid only for encodied SOAP."
      >
      > As far as I can tell WSDL sec 2.2 doesn't seem to make
      > a distinction
      > between the use of SOAP arrays in encoded versus
      > literal styles. Is
      > this a known issue with .Net or am I committing some
      > terrible crime
      > that I'm unaware of?
      >
      > I know .Net supports arrays defined like this in a
      > doc/literal WSDL:
      >
      > <s:complexType name="ArrayOfFoo">
      > <s:sequence>
      > <s:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" name ="Foo"
      > type="foons:Foo" />
      > </s:sequence>
      > </s:complexType>
      >
      > But support for this style seems fairly sparse
      > (eventhough SOAP sec
      > 5.4.3 gives it a thumbs up).
      >
      > Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I checked the archives,
      > MSDN, and ASP.Net
      > newsgroups and didn't find anything.
      >
      > Thanks in advance for any comments or suggestions.
      >
      > -Brad
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > []
      > <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=153641.1824646.3335993.1261774/D=egroup
      > web/S=1705701014:HM/A=889707/R=0/*http://shop.store.yahoo.com/
      > cgi-bin/clink?gloss2+shopping:dmad/M=153641.1824646.3335993.12
      > 61774/D=egroupweb/S=1705701014:HM/A=889707/R=1/1012511775+http
      ://us.rmi.yahoo.com/rmi/http://www.gloss.com/rmi->
      framed-url/http://www.gloss.com/module/EsteeLauder/templates/p
      > roduct/prod_multi.jhtml%3FmCategoryId=cat40207%26mktAdTrack=22
      > 000072>
      >
      > _____
      >
      >
      > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=153641.1824646.3335993.12617
      74/D=egroupmail/S=1705701014:HM/A=889707/rand=438477022>

      -----------------------------------------------------------------
      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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service
      <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




      -----------------------------------------------------------------
      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/
    • sound0
      ... to do this, but I do feel that it s breaking the spirit. I d agree since the spec says should . Its more of an interop hassle. ... definition the absense
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 1, 2002
        > Short answer: I think it doesn't break the letter of the WSDL spec
        to do this, but I do feel that it's breaking the spirit.

        I'd agree since the spec says "should". Its more of an interop
        hassle.

        >
        > Long answer: array type is an encoding-ism. Since doc/lit is by
        definition the absense of an encoding, I'm not sure what it would
        mean, semantically, that derives from SOAP array. doc/lit means that
        the schema is the be all and end all of the wire format, and the
        implementation is completely uncoupled from that.
        >
        But from a doc/literal perspective, can't SOAP array be just another
        type up for grabs? An equal citizen among any types that I might
        define in my schema?

        > I get the feeling I don't completely understand what you are trying
        to do. Could you explain more what you are attempting to describe in
        the WSDL, and how you want that to map to a wire format?

        My problem is basicly this:

        Currently I'm building a SOAP stack for use with our COM library. For
        various reasons, I don't not want to support Sec. 5 completely. So
        the happy medium that I am trying to achieve is similar to the
        default ASP.Net [WebMethod] style which is logically RPC with types
        but uses the doc/literal style.

        At the same time, I'm trying to get some kind of interoperability
        with any Java toolkit to get some free SOAP parsing and automatic
        object-XML serialization (and maybe even code generation!) for a
        potential Java client api to my server. I realize that by going
        doc/literal as opposed to rpc/encoded, my options are limited (or
        nil!). The question is how limited?

        Based on some quick research, the toolkits that I found come close to
        doing what I want (like Jax-RPC, maybe Glue?) all require arrays to
        be encoded using SOAP Array even in doc/literal. I don't have any
        issues with that, but it seems that .Net's "wsdl.exe" and
        VS.Net's "Add Web Reference" do. So in short, for document-literal
        WSDL:
        -.Net wants arrays represented like this (explicitly rejects SOAP
        arrays):
        <s:complexType name="ArrayOfFoo">
        <s:sequence>
        <s:element name="Foo" type="s0:Foo" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1" />
        </s:sequence>
        </s:complexType>

        (As an aside, SOAP 5.4.3 does say this is valid serialization,
        but .Net is the only one who seems to support it.)

        -Most everyone else who supports doc/literal and object serialization
        want something like this:
        <s:complexType name="ArrayOfFoo">
        <s:restriction base="soapenc:Array">
        <s:attribute d7p1:arrayType="s0:Foo[]" ref="soapenc:arrayType"
        xmlns:d7p1="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/" />
        </s:restriction>
        </s:complexType>

        What do I want? I don't really care. I have a love/hate relationship
        with having to include the size in a SOAP encoded array, but I'll get
        over it.

        Thanks for taking the time to read and understand my problem.

        Thanks,
        Brad


        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: sound0 [mailto:brad_taylor@e...]
        > Sent: Thu 1/31/2002 1:16 PM
        > To: soapbuilders@y...
        > Cc:
        > Subject: [soapbuilders] Literal, wsdl.exe, and SOAP Arrays
        >
        >
        > Hello all:
        > I have a doc/literal wsdl that defines a type that derives
        from SOAP
        > array (as descibed in WSDL sec 2.2). When I try to consume it
        using
        > the .Net wsdl.exe, I get the following error:
        >
        > "Referenced
        type 'http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/:Array'
        > valid only for encodied SOAP."
        >
        > As far as I can tell WSDL sec 2.2 doesn't seem to make a
        distinction
        > between the use of SOAP arrays in encoded versus literal
        styles. Is
        > this a known issue with .Net or am I committing some terrible
        crime
        > that I'm unaware of?
        >
        > I know .Net supports arrays defined like this in a
        doc/literal WSDL:
        >
        > <s:complexType name="ArrayOfFoo">
        > <s:sequence>
        > <s:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" name ="Foo"
        > type="foons:Foo" />
        > </s:sequence>
        > </s:complexType>
        >
        > But support for this style seems fairly sparse (eventhough
        SOAP sec
        > 5.4.3 gives it a thumbs up).
        >
        > Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I checked the archives, MSDN, and
        ASP.Net
        > newsgroups and didn't find anything.
        >
        > Thanks in advance for any comments or suggestions.
        >
        > -Brad
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        > []
        <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=153641.1824646.3335993.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17
        05701014:HM/A=889707/R=0/*http://shop.store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?
        gloss2+shopping:dmad/M=153641.1824646.3335993.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17
        05701014:HM/A=889707/R=1/1012511775+http://us.rmi.yahoo.com/rmi/http:/
        /www.gloss.com/rmi-framed-
        url/http://www.gloss.com/module/EsteeLauder/templates/product/prod_mul
        ti.jhtml%3FmCategoryId=cat40207%26mktAdTrack=22000072>
        >
        > _____
        >
        > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
        M=153641.1824646.3335993.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=1705701014:HM/A=889707
        /rand=438477022>
        >
        > --------------------------------------------------------------
        ---
        > 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@y...
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
      • sound0
        Thank you for the clarification. Its all starting to make some sense! If this is the case, then I m curious why most of the toolkits I ve seen only support
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 4, 2002
          Thank you for the clarification. Its all starting to make some sense!

          If this is the case, then I'm curious why most of the toolkits I've
          seen only support SOAP encoded arrays for literal "use" if they are
          actually not valid? Wouldn't this prevent interop with .Net services
          that are document/literal (the default for ASP.NET) and use arrays ?

          If anyone knows of a Java toolkit that supports non-SOAP encoded
          arrays, I'd love to hear about it.

          Thanks again for the responses.


          -Brad


          --- In soapbuilders@y..., "Matt Long" <mlong@P...> wrote:
          > My understanding of WSDL Sec 2.2 for encoded types does not require
          that the
          > schema in 'types' guarantee a complete literal definition of the
          referenced
          > type, that using such type as literal (for SOAP encoded arrays)
          would not be
          > a validating schema for the type itself (assuming generalized
          convention for
          > type="prefix:ArrayOfXXX"). I would also tend to believe that the
          schema of
          > a literal element or type (of which literal 'type' does have some
          issues)
          > must be a validating schema for the element/type. Given the two
          > aforementioned items the 'typical' ArrayOfXXX usage for
          encoded 'type' would
          > not guarantee a valid schema for a literal 'type.'...just my
          opinion.
          >
          > Thoughts?
          >
          > Thx,
          >
          > -Matt Long
          > Phalanx Systems, LLC
          >
          >
          >
          > > -----Original Message-----
          > > From: Keith Ballinger [mailto:keithba@m...]
          > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 1:38 AM
          > > To: soapbuilders@y...; soapbuilders@y...
          > > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Literal, wsdl.exe, and SOAP Arrays
          > >
          > >
          > > This is a great question!
          > >
          > > Short answer: I think it doesn't break the letter of the WSDL
          > > spec to do this, but I do feel that it's breaking the spirit.
          > >
          > > Long answer: array type is an encoding-ism. Since doc/lit is
          > > by definition the absense of an encoding, I'm not sure what
          > > it would mean, semantically, that derives from SOAP array.
          > > doc/lit means that the schema is the be all and end all of
          > > the wire format, and the implementation is completely
          > > uncoupled from that.
          > >
          > > I get the feeling I don't completely understand what you are
          > > trying to do. Could you explain more what you are attempting
          > > to describe in the WSDL, and how you want that to map to a
          > > wire format?
          > >
          > > Thanks!
          > > Keith
          > >
          > > -----Original Message-----
          > > From: sound0 [mailto:brad_taylor@e...]
          > > Sent: Thu 1/31/2002 1:16 PM
          > > To: soapbuilders@y...
          > > Cc:
          > > Subject: [soapbuilders] Literal, wsdl.exe, and SOAP Arrays
          > >
          > >
          > > Hello all:
          > > I have a doc/literal wsdl that defines a type that
          > > derives from SOAP
          > > array (as descibed in WSDL sec 2.2). When I try to
          > > consume it using
          > > the .Net wsdl.exe, I get the following error:
          > >
          > > "Referenced type
          > > 'http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/:Array'
          > > valid only for encodied SOAP."
          > >
          > > As far as I can tell WSDL sec 2.2 doesn't seem to make
          > > a distinction
          > > between the use of SOAP arrays in encoded versus
          > > literal styles. Is
          > > this a known issue with .Net or am I committing some
          > > terrible crime
          > > that I'm unaware of?
          > >
          > > I know .Net supports arrays defined like this in a
          > > doc/literal WSDL:
          > >
          > > <s:complexType name="ArrayOfFoo">
          > > <s:sequence>
          > > <s:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" name ="Foo"
          > > type="foons:Foo" />
          > > </s:sequence>
          > > </s:complexType>
          > >
          > > But support for this style seems fairly sparse
          > > (eventhough SOAP sec
          > > 5.4.3 gives it a thumbs up).
          > >
          > > Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I checked the archives,
          > > MSDN, and ASP.Net
          > > newsgroups and didn't find anything.
          > >
          > > Thanks in advance for any comments or suggestions.
          > >
          > > -Brad
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          > > []
          > > <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=153641.1824646.3335993.1261774/D=egroup
          > > web/S=1705701014:HM/A=889707/R=0/*http://shop.store.yahoo.com/
          > > cgi-bin/clink?gloss2+shopping:dmad/M=153641.1824646.3335993.12
          > > 61774/D=egroupweb/S=1705701014:HM/A=889707/R=1/1012511775+http
          > ://us.rmi.yahoo.com/rmi/http://www.gloss.com/rmi->
          > framed-url/http://www.gloss.com/module/EsteeLauder/templates/p
          > > roduct/prod_multi.jhtml%3FmCategoryId=cat40207%26mktAdTrack=22
          > > 000072>
          > >
          > > _____
          > >
          > >
          > > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=153641.1824646.3335993.12617
          > 74/D=egroupmail/S=1705701014:HM/A=889707/rand=438477022>
          >
          > --------------------------------------------------------------
          ---
          > 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@y...
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          Service
          > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > -----------------------------------------------------------------
          > 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@y...
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • Daniel Kulp
          Brad, XMLBus supports non-encoded arrays when in literal mode for the operations. I think there were a couple minor bugs in the last version relating to
          Message 4 of 6 , Feb 4, 2002
            Brad,

            XMLBus supports non-encoded arrays when in "literal" mode for the
            operations. I think there were a couple minor bugs in the last version
            relating to literal support, but we should have a new version up in the
            next few hours that fixes them. Keep and eye on www.xmlbus.com.

            Thanks!

            --
            J. Daniel Kulp
            Principal Engineer
            IONA
            END 2 ANYWHERE
            P: 781-902-8727 C: 617-513-4582 F:781-902-8001
            daniel.kulp@...



            On Monday 04 February 2002 05:55, sound0 wrote:
            > Thank you for the clarification. Its all starting to make some sense!
            >
            > If this is the case, then I'm curious why most of the toolkits I've
            > seen only support SOAP encoded arrays for literal "use" if they are
            > actually not valid? Wouldn't this prevent interop with .Net services
            > that are document/literal (the default for ASP.NET) and use arrays ?
            >
            > If anyone knows of a Java toolkit that supports non-SOAP encoded
            > arrays, I'd love to hear about it.
            >
            > Thanks again for the responses.
            >
            >
            > -Brad
            >
            > --- In soapbuilders@y..., "Matt Long" <mlong@P...> wrote:
            > > My understanding of WSDL Sec 2.2 for encoded types does not require
            >
            > that the
            >
            > > schema in 'types' guarantee a complete literal definition of the
            >
            > referenced
            >
            > > type, that using such type as literal (for SOAP encoded arrays)
            >
            > would not be
            >
            > > a validating schema for the type itself (assuming generalized
            >
            > convention for
            >
            > > type="prefix:ArrayOfXXX"). I would also tend to believe that the
            >
            > schema of
            >
            > > a literal element or type (of which literal 'type' does have some
            >
            > issues)
            >
            > > must be a validating schema for the element/type. Given the two
            > > aforementioned items the 'typical' ArrayOfXXX usage for
            >
            > encoded 'type' would
            >
            > > not guarantee a valid schema for a literal 'type.'...just my
            >
            > opinion.
            >
            > > Thoughts?
            > >
            > > Thx,
            > >
            > > -Matt Long
            > > Phalanx Systems, LLC
            > >
            > > > -----Original Message-----
            > > > From: Keith Ballinger [mailto:keithba@m...]
            > > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 1:38 AM
            > > > To: soapbuilders@y...; soapbuilders@y...
            > > > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Literal, wsdl.exe, and SOAP Arrays
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > This is a great question!
            > > >
            > > > Short answer: I think it doesn't break the letter of the WSDL
            > > > spec to do this, but I do feel that it's breaking the spirit.
            > > >
            > > > Long answer: array type is an encoding-ism. Since doc/lit is
            > > > by definition the absense of an encoding, I'm not sure what
            > > > it would mean, semantically, that derives from SOAP array.
            > > > doc/lit means that the schema is the be all and end all of
            > > > the wire format, and the implementation is completely
            > > > uncoupled from that.
            > > >
            > > > I get the feeling I don't completely understand what you are
            > > > trying to do. Could you explain more what you are attempting
            > > > to describe in the WSDL, and how you want that to map to a
            > > > wire format?
            > > >
            > > > Thanks!
            > > > Keith
            > > >
            > > > -----Original Message-----
            > > > From: sound0 [mailto:brad_taylor@e...]
            > > > Sent: Thu 1/31/2002 1:16 PM
            > > > To: soapbuilders@y...
            > > > Cc:
            > > > Subject: [soapbuilders] Literal, wsdl.exe, and SOAP Arrays
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Hello all:
            > > > I have a doc/literal wsdl that defines a type that
            > > > derives from SOAP
            > > > array (as descibed in WSDL sec 2.2). When I try to
            > > > consume it using
            > > > the .Net wsdl.exe, I get the following error:
            > > >
            > > > "Referenced type
            > > > 'http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/:Array'
            > > > valid only for encodied SOAP."
            > > >
            > > > As far as I can tell WSDL sec 2.2 doesn't seem to make
            > > > a distinction
            > > > between the use of SOAP arrays in encoded versus
            > > > literal styles. Is
            > > > this a known issue with .Net or am I committing some
            > > > terrible crime
            > > > that I'm unaware of?
            > > >
            > > > I know .Net supports arrays defined like this in a
            > > > doc/literal WSDL:
            > > >
            > > > <s:complexType name="ArrayOfFoo">
            > > > <s:sequence>
            > > > <s:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" name ="Foo"
            > > > type="foons:Foo" />
            > > > </s:sequence>
            > > > </s:complexType>
            > > >
            > > > But support for this style seems fairly sparse
            > > > (eventhough SOAP sec
            > > > 5.4.3 gives it a thumbs up).
            > > >
            > > > Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I checked the archives,
            > > > MSDN, and ASP.Net
            > > > newsgroups and didn't find anything.
            > > >
            > > > Thanks in advance for any comments or suggestions.
            > > >
            > > > -Brad
            > > >
            > > >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.