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

RE: [soapbuilders] Dealing with SOAP 1.2 before WSDL 1.2 comes ou t

Expand Messages
  • Tom Jordahl
    Rich, et al, I apologize for dropping out of this (very interesting) conversation as I dropped off line for about 6 weeks to go on sabbatical. I would have to
    Message 1 of 21 , Jul 17, 2003
      Rich, et al,

      I apologize for dropping out of this (very interesting) conversation as I dropped off line for about 6 weeks to go on sabbatical.

      I would have to say no, I don't 100% agree with Jacek's statement that the data on the wire must always be valid according to the provided schema.

      Here is how I see it:

      If you have a WSDL 1.1 document that specifies rpc/encoded, you would define three attributes on the operations:
      style="rpc"
      use="encoded"
      encodingStyle=http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/

      If you want the same thing expressed in WSDL 1.2, here are the attributes you need:
      style="rpc"
      encodingStyle=http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/

      As far as I know, there is no language in the current draft that forces *encoded* data to conform to the XML Schema in the <types> section. This is why certain groups (e.g. WS-I) have requested/required the world to move to literal use - that way the XML Schema can be used to validate the payload of the SOAP envelope. In WSDL 1.2, literal use means no encoding, so encodingStyle="" - the default.

      This is why I supported the removal of the use= attribute from WSDL 1.2.

      Does this help? I hope people remember enough about the conversation for the above to make sense.

      --
      Tom Jordahl
      Macromedia Server Development

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@...]
      Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 10:21 AM
      To: Tom Jordahl; peter.hendry@...
      Cc: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Dealing with SOAP 1.2 before WSDL 1.2 comes ou t

      Jacek Kopecky wrote:
      > whatever the value of encodingStyle in WSDL 1.2, the data on the wire
      > must be valid according to the provided schema. The use is always
      > "literal".

      Tom, do you agree with Jacek's posting? You were pretty adamant, so I'd
      like to make sure of things.

      Pete, how about you?

      /r$

      --
      Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
      DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
      XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
    • Jacek Kopecky
      Tom, if this is indeed the case, it has to be brought to attention of the WG because IIRC the resolution was that we remove use= encoded and behave like it
      Message 2 of 21 , Jul 18, 2003
        Tom,

        if this is indeed the case, it has to be brought to attention of the WG
        because IIRC the resolution was that we remove use="encoded" and behave
        like it was always use="document", not just remove the 'use' attribute
        and tie the actual use according to the presence of encodingStyle.

        Best regards,

        Jacek Kopecky

        Senior Architect
        Systinet Corporation
        http://www.systinet.com/



        On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 21:00, Tom Jordahl wrote:
        > Rich, et al,
        >
        > I apologize for dropping out of this (very interesting) conversation as I dropped off line for about 6 weeks to go on sabbatical.
        >
        > I would have to say no, I don't 100% agree with Jacek's statement that the data on the wire must always be valid according to the provided schema.
        >
        > Here is how I see it:
        >
        > If you have a WSDL 1.1 document that specifies rpc/encoded, you would define three attributes on the operations:
        > style="rpc"
        > use="encoded"
        > encodingStyle=http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/
        >
        > If you want the same thing expressed in WSDL 1.2, here are the attributes you need:
        > style="rpc"
        > encodingStyle=http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/
        >
        > As far as I know, there is no language in the current draft that forces *encoded* data to conform to the XML Schema in the <types> section. This is why certain groups (e.g. WS-I) have requested/required the world to move to literal use - that way the XML Schema can be used to validate the payload of the SOAP envelope. In WSDL 1.2, literal use means no encoding, so encodingStyle="" - the default.
        >
        > This is why I supported the removal of the use= attribute from WSDL 1.2.
        >
        > Does this help? I hope people remember enough about the conversation for the above to make sense.
        >
        > --
        > Tom Jordahl
        > Macromedia Server Development
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@...]
        > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 10:21 AM
        > To: Tom Jordahl; peter.hendry@...
        > Cc: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Dealing with SOAP 1.2 before WSDL 1.2 comes ou t
        >
        > Jacek Kopecky wrote:
        > > whatever the value of encodingStyle in WSDL 1.2, the data on the wire
        > > must be valid according to the provided schema. The use is always
        > > "literal".
        >
        > Tom, do you agree with Jacek's posting? You were pretty adamant, so I'd
        > like to make sure of things.
        >
        > Pete, how about you?
        >
        > /r$
      • Tom Jordahl
        After discussing this in the weekly WS-Description conference call is does appear that my understanding of the way this works in the current draft was wrong.
        Message 3 of 21 , Jul 24, 2003
          After discussing this in the weekly WS-Description conference call is does appear that my understanding of the way this works in the current draft was wrong.

          When encodingStyle is specified, the XML Schema must still reflect the messages that are sent on the wire. This means, for instance, that if multirefs are used, the Schema must reflect this. It was pointed out that for the 80% case, that is data without graphs, that the Schema would not have to change much, if at all.


          --
          Tom Jordahl
          Macromedia


          -----Original Message-----
          From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@...]
          Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:36 AM
          To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Dealing with SOAP 1.2 before WSDL 1.2 comes
          ou t


          Tom,

          if this is indeed the case, it has to be brought to attention of the WG
          because IIRC the resolution was that we remove use="encoded" and behave
          like it was always use="document", not just remove the 'use' attribute
          and tie the actual use according to the presence of encodingStyle.

          Best regards,

          Jacek Kopecky

          Senior Architect
          Systinet Corporation
          http://www.systinet.com/



          On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 21:00, Tom Jordahl wrote:
          > Rich, et al,
          >
          > I apologize for dropping out of this (very interesting) conversation as I dropped off line for about 6 weeks to go on sabbatical.
          >
          > I would have to say no, I don't 100% agree with Jacek's statement that the data on the wire must always be valid according to the provided schema.
          >
          > Here is how I see it:
          >
          > If you have a WSDL 1.1 document that specifies rpc/encoded, you would define three attributes on the operations:
          > style="rpc"
          > use="encoded"
          > encodingStyle=http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/
          >
          > If you want the same thing expressed in WSDL 1.2, here are the attributes you need:
          > style="rpc"
          > encodingStyle=http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/
          >
          > As far as I know, there is no language in the current draft that forces *encoded* data to conform to the XML Schema in the <types> section. This is why certain groups (e.g. WS-I) have requested/required the world to move to literal use - that way the XML Schema can be used to validate the payload of the SOAP envelope. In WSDL 1.2, literal use means no encoding, so encodingStyle="" - the default.
          >
          > This is why I supported the removal of the use= attribute from WSDL 1.2.
          >
          > Does this help? I hope people remember enough about the conversation for the above to make sense.
          >
          > --
          > Tom Jordahl
          > Macromedia Server Development
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@...]
          > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 10:21 AM
          > To: Tom Jordahl; peter.hendry@...
          > Cc: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Dealing with SOAP 1.2 before WSDL 1.2 comes ou t
          >
          > Jacek Kopecky wrote:
          > > whatever the value of encodingStyle in WSDL 1.2, the data on the wire
          > > must be valid according to the provided schema. The use is always
          > > "literal".
          >
          > Tom, do you agree with Jacek's posting? You were pretty adamant, so I'd
          > like to make sure of things.
          >
          > Pete, how about you?
          >
          > /r$



          -----------------------------------------------------------------
          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/
        • Rich Salz
          ... I wish they had the guts to just come out and admit yes, you got screwed. /r$
          Message 4 of 21 , Jul 24, 2003
            > It was pointed out that for the 80% case, that is data without graphs,
            > that the Schema would not have to change much, if at all.

            I wish they had the guts to just come out and admit "yes, you got screwed."

            /r$
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.