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

RE: [soapbuilders] Re: Nested simpleType declaration

Expand Messages
  • Wes Moulder
    Ted, It s not a derived heirarchy if you re dealing with nested anonymous simpleTypes. In other words, the inner simpleType is completely unreferencable, and
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 20, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Ted,
      It's not a derived heirarchy if you're dealing with nested anonymous
      simpleTypes. In other words, the inner simpleType is completely
      unreferencable, and just makes things needlessly complicated. If you're
      extending an existing XSD type, then that type [sh|w]ould be addressible
      by a name. You addressed in your post that it would work if you break
      out the inner simpleType, so it seemed to be a call for people to
      readily accept anonymous simpleTypes in a restriction.

      All I see are negatives with doing it that way. Are there actually
      positives that I'm missing?
      --Wes


      -----Original Message-----
      From: tedpliu <ted.liu@...> [mailto:ted.liu@...]
      Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 1:14 PM
      To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [soapbuilders] Re: Nested simpleType declaration


      In webMethods Integration Server someone can select any existing XSD
      type and define values for the available facets to create their
      specific type (i.e. they can leverage the full XSD type system). It
      surely is not optimal to require WSDL generators to 'compress' a
      derived hierarchy of types into a flat extension of the simplest type.

      --- In soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com, "Wes Moulder" <wes@t...> wrote:
      > Why not just do it as:
      >
      > <xsd:element name="quantity">
      > <xsd:simpleType>
      > <xsd:restriction base="xsd:string">
      > <xsd:whiteSpace value="preserve" />
      > <xsd:pattern value="\d{3}-[A-Z]{2}"/>
      > </xsd:restriction>
      > </xsd:simpleType>
      > </xsd:element>
      >
      > (other than the fact that requiring it meet a pattern that doesn't
      > contain whitespace, and having whitespace preserved doesn't make
      much
      > sense?)
      >
      > --Wes
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: tedpliu <ted.liu@w...> [mailto:ted.liu@w...]
      > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 5:50 PM
      > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [soapbuilders] Nested simpleType declaration
      >
      >
      > I cannot get AXIS or .NET to consume the following simple type
      > declarations:
      >
      > <xsd:element name="quantity">
      > <xsd:simpleType>
      > <xsd:restriction>
      > <xsd:simpleType>
      > <xsd:restriction base="xsd:decimal">
      > <xsd:fractionDigits value="0"/>
      > <xsd:minInclusive value="1"/>
      > <xsd:whiteSpace value="collapse"/>
      > </xsd:restriction>
      > </xsd:simpleType>
      > <xsd:maxExclusive value="100"/>
      > </xsd:restriction>
      > </xsd:simpleType>
      > </xsd:element>
      >
      > and
      >
      > <xsd:simpleType name="SKU">
      > <xsd:restriction>
      > <xsd:simpleType>
      > <xsd:restriction base="xsd:string">
      > <xsd:whiteSpace value="preserve"/>
      > </xsd:restriction>
      > </xsd:simpleType>
      > <xsd:pattern value="\d{3}-[A-Z]{2}"/>
      > </xsd:restriction>
      > </xsd:simpleType>
      >
      > I believe the problem has with the use of inline simpleType
      > declaration within a simpleType declaration because I was able to
      get
      > AXIS and .NET to consume the following declarations:
      >
      > <xsd:element name="quantity">
      > <xsd:simpleType>
      > <xsd:restriction base="xsd:decimal">
      > <xsd:fractionDigits value="0"/>
      > <xsd:minInclusive value="1"/>
      > <xsd:whiteSpace value="collapse"/>
      > <xsd:maxExclusive value="100"/>
      > </xsd:restriction>
      > </xsd:simpleType>
      > </xsd:element>
      >
      > and
      >
      > <xsd:simpleType name="SKU">
      > <xsd:restriction base="xsd:string">
      > <xsd:whiteSpace value="preserve"/>
      > <xsd:pattern value="\d{3}-[A-Z]{2}"/>
      > </xsd:restriction>
      > </xsd:simpleType>
      >
      > But these modified declarations are not semantically equivalent to
      > the first ones.
      >
      > Has anyone run into this problem? Any suggestions? Thanks.
      >
      > -Ted
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > -----------------------------------------------------------------
      > 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 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/
    • tedpliu <ted.liu@webmethods.com>
      Hi Wes, Per Noah Mendelsohn s suggestion, I have moved this discussion to the xmlschema-dev@w3c.org discussion thread. The question is posted by a colleague of
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 23, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Wes,

        Per Noah Mendelsohn's suggestion, I have moved this discussion to the
        xmlschema-dev@... discussion thread. The question is posted by a
        colleague of mine, Asir Vedamuthu, under the title "Nested Simple
        Type Definitions - AXIS/.NET".

        -Ted

        --- In soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com, "Wes Moulder" <wes@t...> wrote:
        > Ted,
        > It's not a derived heirarchy if you're dealing with nested anonymous
        > simpleTypes. In other words, the inner simpleType is completely
        > unreferencable, and just makes things needlessly complicated. If
        you're
        > extending an existing XSD type, then that type [sh|w]ould be
        addressible
        > by a name. You addressed in your post that it would work if you
        break
        > out the inner simpleType, so it seemed to be a call for people to
        > readily accept anonymous simpleTypes in a restriction.
        >
        > All I see are negatives with doing it that way. Are there actually
        > positives that I'm missing?
        > --Wes
        >
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: tedpliu <ted.liu@w...> [mailto:ted.liu@w...]
        > Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 1:14 PM
        > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [soapbuilders] Re: Nested simpleType declaration
        >
        >
        > In webMethods Integration Server someone can select any existing
        XSD
        > type and define values for the available facets to create their
        > specific type (i.e. they can leverage the full XSD type system). It
        > surely is not optimal to require WSDL generators to 'compress' a
        > derived hierarchy of types into a flat extension of the simplest
        type.
        >
        > --- In soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com, "Wes Moulder" <wes@t...> wrote:
        > > Why not just do it as:
        > >
        > > <xsd:element name="quantity">
        > > <xsd:simpleType>
        > > <xsd:restriction base="xsd:string">
        > > <xsd:whiteSpace value="preserve" />
        > > <xsd:pattern value="\d{3}-[A-Z]{2}"/>
        > > </xsd:restriction>
        > > </xsd:simpleType>
        > > </xsd:element>
        > >
        > > (other than the fact that requiring it meet a pattern that
        doesn't
        > > contain whitespace, and having whitespace preserved doesn't make
        > much
        > > sense?)
        > >
        > > --Wes
        > >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: tedpliu <ted.liu@w...> [mailto:ted.liu@w...]
        > > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 5:50 PM
        > > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: [soapbuilders] Nested simpleType declaration
        > >
        > >
        > > I cannot get AXIS or .NET to consume the following simple type
        > > declarations:
        > >
        > > <xsd:element name="quantity">
        > > <xsd:simpleType>
        > > <xsd:restriction>
        > > <xsd:simpleType>
        > > <xsd:restriction base="xsd:decimal">
        > > <xsd:fractionDigits value="0"/>
        > > <xsd:minInclusive value="1"/>
        > > <xsd:whiteSpace value="collapse"/>
        > > </xsd:restriction>
        > > </xsd:simpleType>
        > > <xsd:maxExclusive value="100"/>
        > > </xsd:restriction>
        > > </xsd:simpleType>
        > > </xsd:element>
        > >
        > > and
        > >
        > > <xsd:simpleType name="SKU">
        > > <xsd:restriction>
        > > <xsd:simpleType>
        > > <xsd:restriction base="xsd:string">
        > > <xsd:whiteSpace value="preserve"/>
        > > </xsd:restriction>
        > > </xsd:simpleType>
        > > <xsd:pattern value="\d{3}-[A-Z]{2}"/>
        > > </xsd:restriction>
        > > </xsd:simpleType>
        > >
        > > I believe the problem has with the use of inline simpleType
        > > declaration within a simpleType declaration because I was able to
        > get
        > > AXIS and .NET to consume the following declarations:
        > >
        > > <xsd:element name="quantity">
        > > <xsd:simpleType>
        > > <xsd:restriction base="xsd:decimal">
        > > <xsd:fractionDigits value="0"/>
        > > <xsd:minInclusive value="1"/>
        > > <xsd:whiteSpace value="collapse"/>
        > > <xsd:maxExclusive value="100"/>
        > > </xsd:restriction>
        > > </xsd:simpleType>
        > > </xsd:element>
        > >
        > > and
        > >
        > > <xsd:simpleType name="SKU">
        > > <xsd:restriction base="xsd:string">
        > > <xsd:whiteSpace value="preserve"/>
        > > <xsd:pattern value="\d{3}-[A-Z]{2}"/>
        > > </xsd:restriction>
        > > </xsd:simpleType>
        > >
        > > But these modified declarations are not semantically equivalent to
        > > the first ones.
        > >
        > > Has anyone run into this problem? Any suggestions? Thanks.
        > >
        > > -Ted
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
        > > 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 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.