[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dss] Core protocol: is the <Status> element the status of what has been validated ?
At 05:13 PM 10/23/2003 +0200, Juan Carlos Cruellas Ibarz wrote: > > > >Yes. I'm sure there's other cases we need to cover too. > > > > >OK..... we will find them out.... > > > > > >>I propose you the following: > >> > >><xs:element name="SignResponse"> > >> <xs:complexType> > >> <xs:sequence> > >> <xs:element ref="dss:Result"/> > >> <xs:element ref="dss:Signature" minOccurs="0"/> > >> <xs:element ref="dss:Outputs" minOccurs="0"/> > >> </xs:sequence> > >> </xs:complexType> > >></xs:element> > >> > >><xs:element name="VerifyResponse"> > >> <xs:complexType> > >> <xs:sequence> > >> <xs:element ref="dss:Result"/> > >> <xs:element ref="dss:Outputs" minOccurs="0"/> > >> </xs:sequence> > >> </xs:complexType> > >></xs:element> > >> > >> > >>And then define a Result having two different elements: > >><xs:element name="Result" type="ResultType"/> > >><xs:complexType name="ResultType"> > >> <xs:sequence> > >> <xs:element ref="ServerProcessingResult"> > >> <xs:element ref="Status" minOccurs="0"> > >> <xs:sequence/> > >></xs:complexType> > >> > >>---> I am using named types just because I remember better the > >>syntax... > > > > >Would your <Status> element ever be used within a <SignResponse>? It seems > >like it wouldn't. > >I guess not: the only thing that a SignResponse would generate is the >signature itself >and the report saying: I have successfully completed. > > > > >So I'd rather get rid of the <Result>, and just include > >its children directly: >Why?, what I am proposing is to re-use <Result> in both places. The >only difference is that in the SignatureResponse it has only one child >and in the ValidationResponse it has two children Since <Result> has a child element that isn't relevant to <SignResponse>, I wouldn't use it within <SignResponse>, otherwise <SignResponse> has something unneeded hanging off it. Yeah, it's optional, but it would still be in the schema, which seems a bit messy. You could use <Result> within <VerifyResponse>, but I don't see the point in having a wrapper element just to contain 1 or 2 children. >.... The first level >is clean and symmetric, we are re-using <Result> and within it >we clearly sepparate what is status result and what is the processing result. >We keep them related, as you mention, by keeping them as children of a >general element that contains, grouped but not mixed all the information >concerning >the results... > > > > ><xs:element name="SignResponse"> > > <xs:complexType> > > <xs:sequence> > > <xs:element ref="ServerProcessingResult"> > > <xs:element ref="dss:Signature" minOccurs="0"/> > > <xs:element ref="dss:Outputs" minOccurs="0"/> > > </xs:sequence> > > </xs:complexType> > ></xs:element> > > > ><xs:element name="VerifyResponse"> > > <xs:complexType> > > <xs:sequence> > > <xs:element ref="ServerProcessingResult"> > > <xs:element ref="Status" > >minOccurs="0"> > > <xs:element ref="dss:Result"/> > > <xs:element ref="dss:Outputs" minOccurs="0"/> > > </xs:sequence> > > </xs:complexType> > ></xs:element> > > > > > >Still, I find this less... aesthetically pleasing then just re-using a > >single <Status> element for both. I doubt we're going to convince each > >other, so I think we should try to get some other opinions as a tie-breaker. > > >Yes, sure, it is less aesthetically pleasing, that is why, after having the >status >and the server processing in different elements, I grouped them in one >element, as they are, as you say, related.... Yeah, but that adds even more "stuff" to the schema. It's "excess stuff" that I don't like. Perhaps excessively. Why add another element just to contain one or two children? Why add another "status-like" element when we can re-use the <Status> we've already got? But your arguments are reasonable. If some-one else expresses an opinion one way or the other, I think we should go with that. >And going into the details, what is the difference between ><ServerProcessingResult> >and <Result> in your <VerifyResponse>? bad copy-and-paste, ignore the <Result> > and why <Status> should be optional? >I think >that in THIS particular schema it should be mandatory... sorry, a typo again. All I meant to do was replace <Result> with <ServerProcessingResult> and <Status>.. Trevor
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]