Re: [regrep] ACTION ITEM

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>]

Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
> Kathryn,
>
> I suspect I missed your deadline, but I promised Farrukh that I would 
> provide comments on the document. Here they are.
Thanks very much Anne for this contribution. Some questions/comments 
inline below to selected portions of your valuable feedback..
> Overall comments: not all WSDL document will contain all parts 
> (service [with ports], bindings, portTypes [with operations], 
> messages, and types). (btw -- bindings have operations, and your WSDL 
> data model doesn't show that.) A WSDL document may just define a 
> portType, or a binding with an imported binding. The description of 
> the WSDL object model makes it sound as if the only type of WSDL that 
> can be registered is a WSDL containing a <service> definition.
It is the goal to support al types of WSDLs including those with just 
portType defs. Will clarify.
>
> Section 4.2.4. In some cases you may not want to specify the access 
> URI in the registry, and instead service consumers should obtain the 
> access URI from another source (e.g., the WSDL file at runtime or from 
> a broker). Therefore you should provide a mechanism to specify an 
> alternative means to obtain the access URI.
That is already supported via ExternalLink to external WSDL.
>
> Section 4.3.5. You should have a classification schema for the 
> encoding scheme. (RPC style binding may use either SOAP encoding or 
> literal) Also note that SOAP 1.1 and WSDL 1.1 permit different styles 
> and encodings for different operations within a binding (although WS-I 
> BP disallows this feature). Also, even if the input and output 
> messages are RPC/encoded, headers and faults should be document/literal.
Good catch. Thanks.
>
> Section 6.2. Your required business rules are somewhat arbitrary. The 
> first business rule will disallow any service developed using .NET, 
> because all .NET services, by default, have HTTP bindings in addition 
> to SOAP bindings. The second rule will disallow WS-I compliant 
> services that implement rpc/literal bindings. It's much more important 
> to make sure that the WSDL is valid -- not from a schema validation 
> perspective, but from a semantic perspective. i.e., can a typical WSDL 
> compiler generate a valid object model from the WSDL?
Can you provide what you might consider as a a good set of minimal 
required configurable business rules for WSDL validation please. Thanks.
>
-- 
Regards,
Farrukh


begin:vcard
fn:Farrukh Najmi
n:Najmi;Farrukh
email;internet:farrukh.najmi@sun.com
tel;work:781-442-9017
url:http://ebxmlrr.sourceforge.net/tmp/farrukhRacePointIcon.jpg
version:2.1
end:vcard