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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

uddi-spec message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Changes to UDDI Schemas and WSDL to support code generation


> You've left out a vital part of the example, that being the minoccurs
> attributes. Without them, the example doesn't make sense - there would
> be no reason for creating such an ugly construct. I think it 
> should look
> like:
>
> <choice>
>    <element name="one" type="string" minoccurs="1"/>
>    <sequence>
>      <element name="one" type="string" minoccurs="0"/>
>      <element name="two" type="string" minoccurs="1"/>
>    </sequence>
> </choice>

Yes, you're right. I was concentrating on the bit that caused the
problem rather than the context...

> 
> I really dislike this idiom, which is a nasty hack to support the idea
> that we require at least one object, where that one may be chosen from
> two types. It requires that the schema parser be coded with special
> handling for this oddball construct.

<snip>

Maybe I was a little hasty in saying that this is something we should
expect the parsers/WSDL kits to get right, but something that needs to
be addressed in the UDDI WSDL. 

I don't expect an answer here and now, but this is the sort of scrutiny
I think the UDDI WSDL needs - is there a simpler way of expressing the
same thing (probably no in this case); is there a simpler construct
which expresses almost the same thing (and is acceptible) (arguable in
this case, but hopefully a consensus could be reached). In the latter
case I don't think we should diverge into two schemas though, for the
reasons I mentioned before.

Matthew


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]