Re: [regrep] WSDL Issues

["Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>]

Some questions and comments:

(1) Per the WS-I BP, you should use wsdl:import to import only WSDL files,
not XSD files. To import XSD files, you should create a <types> section and
use xsd:import to import the schemas. You can do this in one of two ways.
Either you can create another WSDL file that just contains the <types>
section (containing the imported schemas) and then import this types WSDL
into the abstract WSDL, or you can add a <types> section to the abstract
WSDL.

(2) This WSDL is designed to use document/literal -- all your messages (for
the most part) refer to elements (element=) rather than parameters (type=).
But I have noticed that you mix <part>s in three messages
(msgRegistryResponse, msgUpdateObjectsRequest, and msgSubmitObjectsRequest
messages). These messages include two <parts> -- a message element
(different for each one) and a parameter (<part name="partContent"
type="xsd:string"/> -- the same for each one). What is the purpose of the
partContent parameter? I don't see it (or any other parts) referenced by any
<binding> elements.

If partContent is required to be included in the input message, why is it
not included in the message structure?  Also, keep in mind that WS-I BP
permits only one <part> on document/literal messages, so to be WS-I
compliant, you would have to include it in the message structure.

One reason why you might want to define multiple parts in a message
definition is to define header or headerfault messages (which should always
be defined as document/literal) -- but in that case you should always
reference the specific part to be used in the <binding> elements. e.g.:

   <message name='foo'>
      <part name='body' element='foobody' />
      <part name='header' element='fooheader' />
      <part name='headerfault' element='fooheaderfault' />
   </message>

   <soap:body parts='body' use='literal' />
   <soap:header message='tns:foo' part='header' use='literal' />
   <soap:headerfault message='tns:foo' part='headerfault' use='literal' />

Bottom line: the three messages containing partContent have to be fixed.

(3) I'm surprised that you haven't defined any fault messages. I suspect
this is an oversight.

(4) You aren't consistent in you namespace prefixes in your abstract and
soapservice WSDL files. In the asbtract WSDL you refer to the XSD namespaces
as lcm:, query:, and rs:, but in the soapservice WSDL you refer to them as
import1:, import2:, and import3:, respectively. I suggest you change the
namespace prefixes in the soapservice WSDL file to the ones used in the
abstract WSDL. (Not that it really matters -- your don't reference any of
the XSD definitions in the soapservice WSDL.)

(5) In your bindings you should specify style='document'.

(6) In your bindings you specify a SOAPAction. I suggest for a normative
standard you do not want to specify a SOAPAction. (At the very least you
should remove "capeconnect" from the URI and specify an oasis URN)

 (7) You should remove the <service> definition from the normative
specification. A <service> refers to a specific implementation.

Best regards,
Anne

----- Original Message -----
From: "Farrukh Najmi" <farrukh.najmi@sun.com>
To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>
Cc: <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>; "matt" <matt@yellowdragonsoft.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: [regrep] WSDL Issues


> Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
>
> >I have to ask why you elected to use rpc/literal. Very few SOAP
> >implementations currently support rpc/literal. Why not just use
> >document/literal?
> >
> >
> >
> Hi Anne,
>
> I think it was an oversight. I agree with your suggestion that
> document/literal is a better fit.
>
> Would it be possible for you to contribute a list of specific
> suggestions for improvement in the WSDL? This would be a valuable input
> to our work for V3.
>
> --
> Farrukh
>
>
>
> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.
php
>