[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: New InOut (with fault replacing message rule) WSDL 2.0 example illustrating 3.0 features
ebXML CPPA 3.0 adds on an approach to extensibility of both
CPPs and CPAs that conserves previous CPP/CPA 2.0 instances after only
namespace and prefix changes. The TC has also indicated an interest in
“flattening” the XML structure (that is, in allowing a choice
between the old highly nested version and a flatter variant) and increasing
opportunities for reuse, especially for BusinessTransactionCharacteristics and
MesssagingCharacteristics. A number of extensions have been added to accommodate
alternative messaging systems, business process descriptions, and collaboration
protocol features such as WSDL descriptions, ws-policy extensions, and more
generalized transport descriptions. In order to check some of these features I have prepared a
lengthy example illustrating some proposed enhancements, and I am seeking TC
feedback on some details as well as the overall approach. 1. flattened CollaborationRole 2. reuse of BusinessTransactionCharacteristics and
MessagingCharacteristics 3. support for WS request response and faults 4. support for BPSS 2.0 with OperationMapping 5. support for WSDL 2.0 I am enclosing a zip file (renamed with zzz extension) with
the schema versions needed for checking the examples, wsdls, and the various
instances. Only one CPP for the web service is provided. I also have uploaded
the zip file to the Document area of the TC. Before completing the examples (adding the service invoker
CPP and a CPA) and rechecking details, I want to pose several questions that
emerged while testing the new enhancements. 1. The flattening dropped an @action attribute on the new
ActionBinding element. The action value is now in the
ActionContext2/@requestOrResponseAction information item. Should an @action
attribute be added to ActionBinding? Should the use of ActionContext2 be
reconsidered, and possibly remove the requestOrResponseAction attribute? Is the
BTA id value sufficient to define action context, except for cases involving
reuse of BusinessCollaborations? 2. When faults are used in WSDL and used in
“synchronous” MEPs, should an explict ActionBinding be provided for
the fault (so it is treated as a distinct information item with its own channel
properties)? 3. Should the @faultRef on WSDLOperation element, be a list
of URIReference type? [WSDL 2 leaves a lot of room for inventing new MEPs that
might not fit smoothly into the CanSend/CanReceive pairs we now use to describe
each channel. Should we try to accommodate this generality?] 4. Also, at the moment, the faultRef values point to the
main fault and ignore the infault/outfault distinction (because CPP context makes
clear in what direction the fault flows). Should we permit the faultRef’s
URIReferences to an infault or an outfault (then these wsdl information items
enable referencing the actual fault message using its ref attribute)? [Note that several schema location values point to a local
filesystem directory and will probably need to be changed to work in another
environment.] |
CPPA-v3-EnhancementExample.zzz
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]