I’ve taken a second pass at
providing a C++->WSDL / WSDL->C++ mapping, however this time instead of attempting
to completely define the mapping in our spec, I’ve referenced the JAX-WS
spec, and have provided guidance for applying that specification to C++. There
are some areas where the behavior is different enough that JAX-WS doesn’t
apply and we still have to define the behavior ourselves, however much of the
work around defining the mapping of WSDL portTypes/bindings/operations to Java
classes/methods applies equally well to C++ classes/member functions.
Pros:
-
We don’t
have to reinvent the wheel and define a complete mapping ourselves. We
can rely on an established mapping, augmenting it as necessary so that it can
be applied to C++.
-
We
provide some level of interoperability between the SCA C++ and SCA Java
specifications, as SCA Java also relies on the JAX-WS binding for defining
their mapping.
Cons:
-
JAX-WS
only defines a mapping to WSDL 1.1, so we also will only be defining a mapping
to WSDL 1.1. This limitation also applies to the SCA Java spec, so we can
follow their lead in terms of how we’ll address a WSDL 2.0 mapping.
-
Our
C++ implementation is relying on a Java specification, which seems a little
odd.
The current draft is still pretty rough,
and needs examples throughout, however I think it provides a more complete
mapping than the previous proposal. Main areas of work will be the
incorporation of examples (which will probably result in minor changes to the
described APIs), as well as cleanup around fault/exception handling. We
also need to provide some clarification around how the SDO data bindings will
be handled in this system, and how we’ll roundtrip between WSDL and C++
if parameters are defined in terms of complexTypes (which will map to commonj::sdo::DataObjectPtrs,
which lack the type information to roundtrip without code generation of those
types).
We can discuss this at this week’s
meeting, and see if we want to pursue this approach, or if we should revert
back to enhancing the previous proposal.
Thanks.
David.
From: Bryan Aupperle
[mailto:aupperle@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008
11:41 AM
To: sca-c-cpp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [sca-c-cpp] ISSUE 17:
Should C++ -> WSDL Roundtrip with WSDL -> C++
As promised...
Upon
further study, the real distinction seems to be based on if messages have one
part with a type defined by a schema element or potentially multiple parts each
with a type defined by a schema type (simple or otherwise).
As
far as I can tell the difference between doc-literal and wrapped doc-literal
has to do with the rules for the name of the schema element describing the
request message at least as far as the WSDL goes. If I am missing something
here, I would love to be enlightened. I do not suggest distinguishing
between these.
In
any event, I still believe we have to address both ways of describing messages
and this document has revised mapping rules based on those David described last
week as well as the WSDL fragments promised below.
Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
Research Triangle Park, NC
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com
|
Bryan Aupperle/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
05/05/2008 04:30 PM
|
|
To
|
sca-c-cpp@lists.oasis-open.org
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
|
Re: [sca-c-cpp] ISSUE 17: Should C++ ->
WSDL Roundtrip with WSDL -> C++
|
|
As I think about this some more, we are going to have to address mapping from
WSDL for at least rpc-literal, doc-literal and wrapped doc-literal. We
could try and limit this, but the reality is that all three styles are in use.
In the reverse direction I believe that again, we cannot ignore doc-literal or
wrapped doc-literal since these are popular, and interoperable styles. We
can discuss if we need annotations to control which style is to be generated or
leave it to be specified in an implementation dependent manner (e.g. tool
preference).
David has stated the basic principles but now we need to apply them to each
style.
I'll try to work on some WSDL fragments of each style that illustrate the
principles.
Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
Research Triangle Park, NC
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com
|
"David Haney"
<haney@roguewave.com>
04/29/2008 07:53 PM
|
|
To
|
<sca-c-cpp@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
|
[sca-c-cpp] ISSUE 17: Should C++ -> WSDL
Roundtrip with WSDL -> C++
|
|
Attached is some initial work around redefining
the C++ -> WSDL and WSDL
-> C++ mapping. It still needs quite a
bit of work, but there may be
enough there to start discussing whether it's a
direction we want to
take.
Thanks.
David.
-- David Haney
-- Director of Architecture
-- Rogue Wave Software
-- http://www.roguewave.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave
the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this
group and all your TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave
the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this
group and all your TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php