[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: Interface compatibility refers to input/outputtypes which is ambiguous when using WSDL 1.1
Four comments inlined below. -Anish -- Simon Nash wrote: > See comments inline. > > Simon > > Mike Edwards wrote: >> >> Logged as Issue 166: _http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-116_ >> >> 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 >> >> >> From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> >> To: OASIS Assembly <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org> >> Date: 26/02/2009 07:46 >> Subject: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: Interface compatibility refers >> to input/output types which is ambiguous when using WSDL 1.1 >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> Title: Interface compatibility refers to input/output types which is >> ambiguous when using WSDL 1.1 >> >> Description: >> In ASM60017 it states: >> "compatibility between the source interface and the target interface for >> a wire for the individual operations is defined as compatibility of the >> signature, that is operation name, input types, and output types MUST be >> the same." >> >> There are two problems with this: >> 1) We allow different interface languages to be used in SCA, so it is >> not clear how the operation name and type comparison would be made to >> determine if they are the "same". >> 2) When using WSDL 1.1 interface, there are two "types" allowed: XML >> Schema element decl or XML Schema type. How is "sameness" determined in >> a case where the reference uses XML Schema element decl and the service >> uses a XML Schema type. >> >> Proposal: >> >> 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. > Thanks for pointing this out. I had forgotten that we don't require mapping to WSDL. I'm curious why the mapping must be source->target ? Won't it be right to allow either source->target or target->source ? What happens if mapping between interface type A and type B is defined, but mapping from B to A is not defined? >> 2) Two interfaces A and B, where A uses XML Schema element decl and B >> uses XML Schema type are considered incompatible. >> > I'm OK with this. > >> Text change -- >> replace ASM60017 with: >> "compatibility between the source interface and the target interface for >> a wire for the individual operations is defined as compatibility of the >> signature, that is operation name, input types, and output types MUST be >> the same, ***after the interfaces are mapped to WSDL 1.1 portTypes***." >> > Alternative proposal: > 1. Do not make the above change to ASM60017. > 2. Remove the following later paragraph that talks about interface types > being equivalent: > "A Wire can connect between different interface languages (eg. Java > interfaces and WSDL portTypes) in either direction, as long as the > operations defined by the two interface types are equivalent. They > are equivalent if the operation(s), parameter(s), return value(s) > and faults/exceptions map to each other." I'm fine with this. > 3. Add a new normative paragraph number 6 after ASM60019 as follows: > "6. If the source and target interfaces have different SCA interface > types representing different interface languages (e.g., Java interfaces > and WSDL portTypes), the target interface MUST be mappable into the > source interface language using mapping rules defined by the > SCA interface type of the target interface and/or the SCA interface > type of the source interface. [ASM600xx] In addition, the criteria > specified in numbered points 1 through 5 above MUST be satisfied > when applied to the source interface and the mapped target interface. > [ASM600xx]" Not sure why target->source is important. > >> add addition text as follows: >> WSDL 1.1 message parts can point to XML Schema element declaration or >> XML Schema types. When determining compatibility between two WSDL >> operations, a message part that points to an XML Schema element >> declaration is considered to be incompatible with a message part that >> points to an XML Schema type. >> > Should this go in section 7.5 (WSDL interface type)? That would make sense. > > Simon > >> -Anish >> -- >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: >> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >> >> >>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]