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

RE: [wsdl] clarification

Expand Messages
  • Matt Long
    Hi Si, I see this as an issue as the spec is not clear on this. In the spec example the type could be either a PO | Invoice, but does not address multiple
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 22, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Si,

      I see this as an issue as the spec is not clear on this. In the spec
      example the 'type' could be either a PO | Invoice, but does not address
      multiple document parts. It is difficult (at best) to generically handle
      such cases where two literal message parts exist, one of 'type' the other or
      'element.'

      It becomes cumbersome (especially to validate) since the members of the
      complexType are inlined with the second message part.
      If this is disallowed, a restriction exists to the number of message parts
      one can use with type (using literal). If it is allowed, it seems unnatural
      from my pov. Of course, if element was mandatory the issue with parts goes
      way, but does not allow fragments as message parts. This looks a bit like a
      potatoE in Pandora's box.


      Example:
      <schema ...>
      <complexType name="SOAPStruct">
      <element name="varString type="string"/>
      <element name="varInt" type="int" />
      </complexType>
      <element name="partX" type="string/>
      </schema>

      two message parts
      <message...>
      <part name="parameter1" type="prefix:SOAPStruct"/>
      <part name="parameter2" element="prefix:partX"/>
      </message>

      ...
      <S:Body>
      <varString/>
      <varInt/>
      <partX/>
      </S:Body>
      ...




      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Simon Horrell [mailto:simonh@...]
      > Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 4:40 AM
      > To: wsdl@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [wsdl] clarification
      >
      >
      > Sorry if this is an elementary question but I just wanted to
      > get it straight
      > in my mind.
      >
      > From section 3.5 of the WSDL 1.1 spec.
      >
      > "If use is literal, then each part references a concrete
      > schema definition
      > using either the element or type attribute. In the first
      > case, the element
      > referenced by the part will appear directly under the Body
      > element (for
      > document style bindings) or under an accessor element named after the
      > message part (in rpc style). In the second, the type
      > referenced by the part
      > becomes the schema type of the enclosing element (Body for
      > document style or
      > part accessor element for rpc style)."
      >
      > So for a document/literal operation the XSD type referenced
      > by the message
      > part becomes the schema type of the SOAP Body element.
      > Presumably this mean
      > that a document/literal operation can only reference a single
      > message part
      > that uses the 'type' attribute to refer to an XSD type? Can
      > the message only
      > have one such type?
      >
      > Section 2.3.1 seems to support the latter.
      >
      > "However, if the message contents are sufficiently complex, then an
      > alternative syntax may be used to specify the composite
      > structure of the
      > message using the type system directly. In this usage, only
      > one part may be
      > specified. In the following example, the body is either a
      > purchase order,
      > or a set of invoices."
      >
      > Thoughts?
      >
      > Si.
      >
      >
      > ------------------------ 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/oCuuSA/XdiDAA/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/
    • Simon Horrell
      Hi Matt. Thanks for getting back to me. I would say that type should be deprecated. I try never to use it for the very reasons you state. Si. ... From: Matt
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 22, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Matt.
        Thanks for getting back to me.
        I would say that type should be deprecated. I try never to use it for the
        very reasons you state.
        Si.

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Matt Long" <mlong@...>
        To: <wsdl@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 4:21 PM
        Subject: RE: [wsdl] clarification


        > Hi Si,
        >
        > I see this as an issue as the spec is not clear on this. In the spec
        > example the 'type' could be either a PO | Invoice, but does not address
        > multiple document parts. It is difficult (at best) to generically handle
        > such cases where two literal message parts exist, one of 'type' the other
        or
        > 'element.'
        >
        > It becomes cumbersome (especially to validate) since the members of the
        > complexType are inlined with the second message part.
        > If this is disallowed, a restriction exists to the number of message parts
        > one can use with type (using literal). If it is allowed, it seems
        unnatural
        > from my pov. Of course, if element was mandatory the issue with parts
        goes
        > way, but does not allow fragments as message parts. This looks a bit like
        a
        > potatoE in Pandora's box.
        >
        >
        > Example:
        > <schema ...>
        > <complexType name="SOAPStruct">
        > <element name="varString type="string"/>
        > <element name="varInt" type="int" />
        > </complexType>
        > <element name="partX" type="string/>
        > </schema>
        >
        > two message parts
        > <message...>
        > <part name="parameter1" type="prefix:SOAPStruct"/>
        > <part name="parameter2" element="prefix:partX"/>
        > </message>
        >
        > ...
        > <S:Body>
        > <varString/>
        > <varInt/>
        > <partX/>
        > </S:Body>
        > ...
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: Simon Horrell [mailto:simonh@...]
        > > Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 4:40 AM
        > > To: wsdl@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: [wsdl] clarification
        > >
        > >
        > > Sorry if this is an elementary question but I just wanted to
        > > get it straight
        > > in my mind.
        > >
        > > From section 3.5 of the WSDL 1.1 spec.
        > >
        > > "If use is literal, then each part references a concrete
        > > schema definition
        > > using either the element or type attribute. In the first
        > > case, the element
        > > referenced by the part will appear directly under the Body
        > > element (for
        > > document style bindings) or under an accessor element named after the
        > > message part (in rpc style). In the second, the type
        > > referenced by the part
        > > becomes the schema type of the enclosing element (Body for
        > > document style or
        > > part accessor element for rpc style)."
        > >
        > > So for a document/literal operation the XSD type referenced
        > > by the message
        > > part becomes the schema type of the SOAP Body element.
        > > Presumably this mean
        > > that a document/literal operation can only reference a single
        > > message part
        > > that uses the 'type' attribute to refer to an XSD type? Can
        > > the message only
        > > have one such type?
        > >
        > > Section 2.3.1 seems to support the latter.
        > >
        > > "However, if the message contents are sufficiently complex, then an
        > > alternative syntax may be used to specify the composite
        > > structure of the
        > > message using the type system directly. In this usage, only
        > > one part may be
        > > specified. In the following example, the body is either a
        > > purchase order,
        > > or a set of invoices."
        > >
        > > Thoughts?
        > >
        > > Si.
        > >
        > >
        > > ------------------------ 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/oCuuSA/XdiDAA/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/
        >
        >
        >
        > -----------------------------------------------------------------
        > 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/
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.