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

RE: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update - wsdl:required on soap:header in WSDL Interop

Expand Messages
  • Kirill Gavrylyuk
    As a consequence of this discussion, should we drop wsdl:required attribute from soap:header elements in http://www.whitemesa.net/r3/InteropTestHeaders.wsdl as
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 4 7:26 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      As a consequence of this discussion, should we drop wsdl:required
      attribute from soap:header elements in
      http://www.whitemesa.net/r3/InteropTestHeaders.wsdl

      as Simon Fell suggested earlier?

      Thanks.

      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Mike Deem [mailto:mikedeem@...]
      > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 3:25 PM
      > To: wsdl@yahoogroups.com; soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update
      >
      >
      > Adding soapbuilders.
      >
      > == Mike ==
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Mike Deem
      > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 3:01 PM
      > To: 'wsdl@yahoogroups.com'
      > Subject: RE: [wsdl] FW: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update
      >
      > I don't think that interpreting the meaning of wsdl:required
      > based on context is possible. The specification certainly
      > doesn't spell out how such interpretation should be done on
      > an element by element basis and such details are necessary to
      > resolve ambiguity. While it seems intuitive to say that
      > wsdl:required="false" means a header is optional what does it
      > mean for soap:body? How about soap:operation?
      >
      > If it is truly desirable for there to be a way to specify
      > that a given header is optional (something that I doubt), you
      > could do it using a new extension element and wsdl:required
      > in the way it is intended to be
      > used:
      >
      > <wsdl:input>
      > <myext:optionalHeaders wsdl:required="true">
      > <soap:header .../>
      > <soap:header .../>
      > </myext:optionalHeaders>
      > ...
      > </wsdl:input>
      >
      > A processor that doesn't recognize the extension should
      > ignore the nested soap:header elements. One that does
      > recognize the extension would be implemented to process them
      > in a way that they are optional.
      >
      > == Mike ==
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Matt Long [mailto:mlong@...]
      > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 1:06 PM
      > To: wsdl@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [wsdl] FW: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update
      >
      > Hi Mike,
      >
      > I see a potential issue as one of context. It seems that
      > wsdl:required in some cases is being used to communicate the
      > context of message, i.e., wsdl:required="1" encoded on
      > soap:header indicates the soap:header is required for
      > successful messaging processing. I can vision advantages on
      > both sides of the wire doing this.
      >
      > Do you think usage as such is in-scope or out-of-scope?
      >
      >
      > Thx,
      >
      > -Matt Long
      > Phalanx Systems,LLC
      >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: Mike Deem [mailto:mikedeem@...]
      > > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 2:23 PM
      > > To: wsdl@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: RE: [wsdl] FW: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update
      > >
      > >
      > > I think it is as simple as this: if a WSDL processor sees a
      > > wsdl:required="1" attribute on an extension element it doesn't
      > > recognize, it should fail (otherwise, it could produce incorrect
      > > results). Other unrecognized extension elements can safely
      > be ignored.
      > > This attribute has no more or less meaning then that.
      > >
      > > Since a WSDL processor that supports SOAP is expected to
      > recognize all
      > > the soap related extension elements, it seems valid to put a
      > > wsdl:required="1" attribute on any of them. The absence of this
      > > attribute in most WSDL documents means only that most authors are
      > > expecting that every WSDL implementation understands the SOAP
      > > extension even though that requirement is not explicitly stated.
      > >
      > > == Mike ==
      > >
      > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
      > > rights.
      > >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: Matt Long [mailto:mlong@...]
      > > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 8:11 AM
      > > To: wsdl@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: [wsdl] FW: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update
      > >
      > >
      > > All,
      > >
      > > It looks like wsdl:required is back on the table.
      > >
      > > With regard for soap binding schema,
      > >
      > > 1) soap:body, where wsdl:required="1" or omitted is valid;
      > > wsdl:required="0" invalid
      > > 2) soap:operation, (same as (1))
      > > 3) soap:fault, optional where wsdl:required="1" is
      > explicitly defined
      > > fault; wsdl:required="0" is optional explicit usage.
      > > 4) soap:header
      > > a) input header, where wsdl:required="1" is required
      > input header;
      > > wsdl:required="0" or omitted optional header
      > > b) output header, where wsdl:required="1" header is always
      > > transmitted; wsdl:required="0" or omittted optional transmitted
      > > header
      > >
      > > Is this consistent with current thoughts on usage of wsdl:required?
      > >
      > > Thx,
      > >
      > > -Matt Long
      > > Phalanx Systems, LLC
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: Kirill Gavrylyuk [mailto:kirillg@...]
      > > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 1:20 AM
      > > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Hi, all!
      > > Following community demand for updating WSDL schemas to
      > Recommendation
      > > version of XML Schema, schemas were updated at the following
      > > locations:
      > >
      > > Wsdl.xsd - <http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/>
      > > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/
      > > Wsdl-mime.xsd - <http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/mime/>
      > > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/mime/
      > > Wsdl-http.xsd - <http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/http/>
      > > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/http/
      > > Wsdl-soap.xsd - <http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/>
      > > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/
      > >
      > > Schemas were also fixed in couple places to match verbiage
      > of the WSDL
      > > spec. They were reviewed and approved by spec authors.
      > >
      > > Please take a look and tell us if there are any problems.
      > >
      > > Thank you.
      > >
      > >
      > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
      > > 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/
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
      > > This group is a forum for the discussion of the WSDL
      > specification and
      > > its implementation. Please stay on-topic.
      > >
      > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > wsdl-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > > ---------------------~-->
      > > Sponsored by VeriSign - The Value of Trust
      > > Pinpoint the right security solution for your company - FREE
      > > Guide from industry leader VeriSign gives you all the facts.
      > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/lWSNbC/WdiDAA/yigFAA/W6uqlB/TM
      > > --------------------------------------------------------------
      > > -------~->
      > >
      > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
      > > This group is a forum for the discussion of the WSDL
      > > specification and its implementation. Please stay on-topic.
      > >
      > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > wsdl-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > ---------------------~-->
      > Sponsored by VeriSign - The Value of Trust
      > When building an e-commerce site, you want to start with a
      > secure foundation. Learn how with VeriSign's FREE Guide.
      > http://us.click.yahoo.com/kWSNbC/XdiDAA/yigFAA/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.