Re: [sca-assembly] Issue 17 proposal

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

Mike,

This was in context of simplifying how we define sca:include, making it 
non-textual inclusion, making it recursive, and Scott's suggestion of 
"merging" the infosets.

WSDL defines a component model which is an abstraction on top of the 
infoset. This component model can span multiple infosets. These multiple 
infoset come into existence because of wsdl:includes. The component 
model get populated after parsing all the documents and processing the 
wsdl:include. See 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-wsdl20-primer-20070626/#import-component 
and http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-wsdl20-20070626/#component_model for 
more details.

HTH.

-Anish
--

Mike Edwards wrote:
> 
> Anish,
> 
> Just reading over one of the emails from earlier this month and I 
> realize that I dont understand the
> significance of something you said here
> 
> - what do you mean when you say "SCA does not define a component model a 
> la WSDL 2.0" ??
> 
> - what would it mean for SCA to have a formal component model and what 
> difference would it make
> to the current discussion?
> 
> 
> Yours,  Mike.
> 
> Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
> Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
> IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
> Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  
> Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com
> 
> Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> wrote on 05/02/2008 20:51:51:
> 
>  > I missed the other half. Thanks for pointing that out. For some reason I
>  > thought issue 24 [1] dealt with that. AFAICT, 17 and 24 are the same.
>  >
>  > SCA does not define a component model a la WSDL 2.0. All we have is
>  > Infoset. Not sure what you were thinking wrt to a formal proposal. I
>  > would be interested in seeing it. Wrt Qname resolution, my inclination
>  > is to say that all the resolutions happen in the context of the
>  > including composite. When u do an include there is no encapsulation,
>  > everything belongs to the including composite. The including composite
>  > defines the scope (property names, target names etc -- target names in
>  > either composite can freely mix service names from both composites) and
>  > the resolution mechanism. IOW, given a composite that contains one or
>  > more sca:include elements, there exists an equivalent composite without
>  > any sca:include elements whose characteristics are exactly the same. The
>  > rules in my proposal are for mapping a composite with include elements
>  > to one without.
>  >
>  > Given that we don't have a formal component model a la WSDL 2.0, maybe
>  > equivalence rules is how we should state it in the spec.
>  >
>  > Comments?
>  >
>  > -Anish
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> /
> /
> 
> /Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>