[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] Issue 116: Interface compatibility refers to input/outputtypes which is ambiguous when using WSDL 1.1
Mike Edwards wrote: > > Folks, > > Comments inline > > Yours, Mike. > > Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO. > Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC. > IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain. > Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 Mobile: +44-7802-467431 > Email: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com > > Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> wrote on 02/03/2009 10:24:04: > > > [image removed] > <snip> > > > Outline -- > > > 1) Use the WSDL 1.1 interface as the canonical interface language and > > > require that "sameness" be determined after the interfaces are > mapped to > > > WSDL 1.1. > > > > > I don't think this is the right solution. We don't require (and > shouldn't > > require) that all SCA interfaces must be mappable to WSDL. The > requirement > > should be that the SCA interface types of the source and target interface > > define mappings that can be applied to the target interface to produce > > a representation of the target interface in the source interface > language. > > > > I disagree. I think that for remotable interfaces, it is right and > reasonable > to require that all interface types map to WSDL. If this is not done, > then you > have a difficult n x n mapping table to construct - and worse, I think > it will > be hard to know whether any particular binding can be used for that > remotable > interface. > > The requirement for mapping to WSDL allows a much simpler approach both to > comparison of interfaces and also to the application of bindings. > > For local interfaces, WSDL mapping should not be a requirement, but there, > the restrictions on mapping of interfaces will need to be spelled out. > The proposed text is for the wiring section. Wiring applies to local interfaces as well as remotable interfaces. Any rules for wiring need to apply to both local and remotable interfaces. The text proposed by Anish does not meet this requirement. The question about whether all remotable interfaces are required to be mappable to WSDL is a separate issue. Currently, there is nothing in the Assembly specification saying this and there is no open issue concerning this. A number of interface specifications are owned by other TCs and IMO the Assembly specification should not impose this as a requirement on all of those other TCs and the interface specifications that they create. Each interface specification should state whether or not its remotable interfaces MUST be mappable to WSDL. Having these other specs require this and define the mapping to WSDL would be the normal case. For example, I think this mapping should be required and defined for remotable Java interfaces. I believe the alternative text that I have proposed is sufficient to define wiring rules without the need to mention WSDL. I am not sure what the difficulty is with the application of bindings. Please can you give more details of this. Requiring the compatibility test to be performed on mapped WSDL doesn't work for some cases. Consider the following examples: 1. A service uses interface.wsdl and a reference uses interface.java. In this case the service interface needs to be mapped from WSDL to Java and the compatibility test needs to be applied to the reference's Java interface and the WSDL->Java mapping of the service's interface. It would not be valid to map the reference's interface from Java to WSDL using the Java->WSDL mapping and apply the compatibility test to this mapped interface and the service's interface, because the WSDL that will be used on the wire is the service's WSDL and not the generated Java->WSDL mapping of the reference. 2. A service uses interface.java and a reference uses interface.java. The compatibility test needs to be applied directly to these Java interfaces. It would not be valid to to map them both to WSDL and apply the compatibility test to the generated WSDL, because of the false positives that could occur if different Java types map to the same WSDL type. Simon > <snip> > > > > Simon > > > > > -Anish > > > -- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > / > / > > /Unless stated otherwise above: > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number > 741598. > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU/ > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]