OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-assembly message

[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]