wsrf message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrf] Should we collapse WSRF schema documents?
- From: Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>
- To: wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 08:19:08 -0500
I agree with all of those who have pointed
out the downsides of collapsing all of the schemas into a single file,
but would suggest that factoring out common definitions into a core schema
file which each of the spec-specific schemas then imports would be helpful.
Rich
Ian Robinson <ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com>
11/18/2004 07:36 AM
|
To
| wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| [wsrf] Should we collapse
WSRF schema documents? |
|
Related to issues 50 ("WSRF50: Faults common to multiple specs in
one
namespace ") and 81 ("WSRF81: recommendation to change WSDL documents"),
I
would like to suggest that we collapse the schema for RP, RL, SG and BF
into a single document that can be imported into each WSDL.
On the telecon this week, we resolved issue 50: "WSRF50: Faults common
to
multiple specs in one namespace "
with a recommendation to move the definition of the ‘ResourceUnknown’
fault
from WSRF-RP to the WS-Resource spec. A new schema document, referenced
from the WS-Resource specification, would be needed to contain the type
definition of this fault. This fault may be returned by a WS-Resource
following any message exchange, not just those protocol messages defined
in
the WSRF specs.
Rather than create a new schema document, we could consider refactoring
our
existing ones by collapsing the RP, RL, SG and BF schema into a single
WSRF
schema document.
Any opinions?
Ian
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]