[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp-wsia] Issue #51 - Naming scheme
I agree this modification scopes different bindings for a factor better. Andre Kramer has also privately replied that using '.' as a delimiter leads to some mangled names in the .Net tools, but that using '_' for the same role doesn't. This would lead to: SPEC_VERSION_FACTOR_WSDLTYPE_TYPESPECIFIC The fact that SSL isn't indicated until one gets to the soap:address element in the port definition is a WSDL choice. We should live with it rather than inventing something else and then having to deal with it getting out of sync with the soap:address specification. Richard Cieply/Germany/IB To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org M@IBMDE cc: Subject: Re: [wsrp-wsia] Issue #51 - Naming scheme 10/08/2002 04:11 AM Hi Rich, I would choose a different order for the bindings like: WSRP.v1.ServiceDescription.Binding.SOAP. This seems to be more consistent with WSRP.v1.Markup.PortType. Furthermore it is more efficient for the search. I think one search use case could be to find _all_ ServiceDescription bindings no matter what transport they use and then choose the one that is compatible with the one the consumer supports. Therefor I would propose a slightly changed scheme: SPEC.VERSION.FACTOR.TYPE.TYPESPECIFIC where type is PortType|Binding and type specific is SOAP, DIME, MIME, whatever we may have... One additional question arises for me here: How should we reflect secure/unsecure bindings like HTTP vs. HTTPS. The binding definition in the WSDL would remain the same for both. The only distinction between secure/unsecure bindings is the protocol identifier in the location attribute of the ../wsdl/soap:address element of the port definition. Richard |---------+----------------------------> | | Rich | | | Thompson/Watson/I| | | BM@IBMUS | | | | | | 10/07/2002 07:20 | | | PM | | | | |---------+----------------------------> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org | | cc: | | Subject: [wsrp-wsia] Issue #51 - Naming scheme | | | | | > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| While this issue explicitly raised how the naming scheme should be chosen for use when publishing to UDDI, it is important to consider the naming scheme for the factors/bindings. Draft v0.7 uses this scheme: SpecIindicator '.' VersionNumber '.' FactorName '.' (DistinguishingFactor '.') WSDLname as in: WSRP.v1.Markup.PortType WSRP.v1.ServiceDescription.SOAP.Binding To me this provides the scoping in the right order (spec/version/factor/WSDLDescriptionPortion). Proposed resolution: Accept v0.7 naming scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC