Eric,
I’m just happy to be getting this sort of feedback so that
we can (hopefully) improve the interoperability of the spec.
I’m CCing the TC and attaching the corrected WSDL again so
that they everyone is aware of this issue. We should talk about this at
the next TC meeting and decide how we want to handle it. At a minimum,
this would be errata to the 4.0 web services SIP but a bug-fix release (e.g.
4.01) is probably in order.
Thanks,
Jim Cabral
James
E. Cabral Jr.
MTG Management Consultants, L.L.C.
(206) 442-5010
www.mtgmc.com
Helping our clients make a
difference in the lives of the people they serve.
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete
the material from any computer.
From: Eric Dimick Eastman
[mailto:erice@doxpop.com]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:07 PM
To: Cabral, James E.
Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Ohio Judicial Conference
Jim,
Thanks for getting back to me. That WSDL looks a lot like my work-around
version. I'm sure that it will work for us. Our production system
is still based on 3.0, but I'll be working on 4.0 soon. I'll let you
know.
Too bad that it looks like a flaw in the 4.0 SIP, but the good news is that I'm
not crazy.
Assuming that this works out well, do you think it would be included in a 4.0.1
version of the SIP? We claim that WS-I compliance is required for ECF WS
SIP 4.0 compliance so I assume that we would not want this conflict out there.
Thanks again,
Eric
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Cabral, James E. <JCabral@mtgmc.com> wrote:
Eric,
This looks like it is an issue
of nonconformance of the ECF web services SIP with Section 4.4.1 of the
WS-I Basic Profile spec. While the WSDL and SOAP specs clearly allow
messages with multiple parts, Section 4.4.1 of the WS-I Basic Profile spec (http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.1.html#Bindings_and_Parts)
includes these restrictions:
4.4.1 Bindings and Parts
There are various interpretations about how many wsdl:part elements are permitted or required for document-literal
and rpc-literal bindings and how they must be defined.
R2201 A document-literal binding in a DESCRIPTION MUST, in each
of its soapbind:body element(s), have at most one part listed in the parts attribute, if the parts attribute is specified.
R2209 A wsdl:binding in a DESCRIPTION SHOULD bind every wsdl:part of a wsdl:message in the wsdl:portType to which it refers with a binding extension element.
R2210 If a document-literal binding in a DESCRIPTION does not
specify the parts attribute on a soapbind:body element, the
corresponding abstract wsdl:message MUST define zero or one wsdl:parts.
…
For document-literal bindings, the Profile
requires that at most one part, abstractly defined with the element attribute, be serialized into the soap:Body element.
To bring ECF into conformance
with WS-I Basic Profile 1.1 , we need to define new elements for the body of
each of the WSDL messages that have multiple input parameters, namely
NotifyFilingReviewCompleteRequest, RecordFilingRequest, and ReviewFilingRequest.
I have tried this approach in the attached WSDL file. Please try it out
and let me know if this works for you.
Sorry it took me a week to get
back to you.
Thanks,
Jim Cabral
James E. Cabral Jr.
MTG Management Consultants,
L.L.C.
(206) 442-5010
www.mtgmc.com
Helping our clients make a
difference in the lives of the people they serve.
The
information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it
is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from
any computer.
From: Eric Dimick Eastman [mailto:erice@doxpop.com]
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:27 PM
To: Cabral, James E.
Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Ohio Judicial Conference
Jim,
Thanks for the presentation. It served as a great jumping off
point. I'm attaching the drawings I made in case they are any use to
you. Amateurish, I know, but I never claimed to be an artist. I
know that ServeFiling isn't required, but the Service MDE is fairly useless
without it. I added a "if you have one" caveat to the talk.
Also, I'm having a problem with the WSDL's for the webservices SIP. About
a year ago I noticed that I was getting an error when I tried to implement the
messages that have more than one part. I only needed the
CoreFilingMessage at the time, so I just commented out the other parts and
didn't think too much about it. Now we need to include a PaymentMessage
and I've put a fair amount of effort into it and I still can't get it to
work. I've read the SOAP spec and I believe that the SOAP body needs to
be one root XML element.
This is the section of the WSDL I'm having problems with. This example is
from version 4.0, but the same problem exists in 3.0 and 3.1:
<input name="ReviewFilingRequest">
<soap:body parts="CoreFilingMessage
PaymentMessage" use="literal"/>
</input>
When I try this with Java's wsimport tool I get a message that goes something
like "More than one message part bound to SOAP body.
Skipping..."
The only work-around I've been able to complete is to create a
<ReviewFilingRequest> element to surround the CoreFilingMessage and the
Payment message and then redefing the message to have only one part.
I have one more straw to grasp at which is changing the "use"
attribute from "literal" to "encoded". I don't have
much hope for it and it would also require a change to the WSDL.
I wasn't a part of any discussions about how to construct the SOAP
bindings. I was hoping you might have some insights or at least know whom
to ask.
Any thoughts?
Thanks again,
Eric
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Cabral, James E. <JCabral@mtgmc.com>
wrote:
Eric,
Here’s our presentation
from the E-Courts conference, it’s a quick start to ECF which isn’t
exactly your topic but you may be able to use some of the material.
Let me know if there is something else I can help you with.
Thanks,
Jim Cabral
James E. Cabral Jr.
MTG Management Consultants,
L.L.C.
(206) 442-5010
www.mtgmc.com
Helping our clients make a
difference in the lives of the people they serve.
The
information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it
is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from
any computer.
From: Eric Dimick Eastman [mailto:erice@doxpop.com]
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 2:23 PM
To: ECF TC
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Ohio Judicial Conference
Hello ECF TC (especially outreach folks),
We will be attending the Ohio Judicial Conference Court Technology Conference on May
29th. I just became aware today that I'm signed up for a 1/2 hour
speaking slot and I thought that "Standards-Based Electronic Filing"
might be a fun topic. I'm trying to fit preparing for this into an
already busy schedule.
So a couple questions:
1) Do we have any content to serve as a jumping off point? Any graphics or
diagrams for visual appeal? Any interest in collaborating from other folks who
will be giving presentations soon?
2) Any issue with handing out copies of the Quick Start Guide?
Thanks,
Eric
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Eastman
erice@doxpop.com
http://www.doxpop.com
765.965.7363 x104
765.962.9788 (Fax)
Doxpop - Public Records at Your Fingertips.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Eastman
erice@doxpop.com
http://www.doxpop.com
765.965.7363 x104
765.962.9788 (Fax)
Doxpop - Public Records at Your Fingertips.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Eastman
erice@doxpop.com
http://www.doxpop.com
765.965.7363 x104
765.962.9788 (Fax)
Doxpop - Public Records at Your Fingertips.
|