[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] Issue 116: Interface compatibility refers to input/outputtypes which is ambiguous when using WSDL 1.1
Two comments inlined below. -Anish -- Simon Nash wrote: > Mike Edwards wrote: >> >> Folks, >> >> Comments inline >> >> 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 >> >> Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> wrote on 02/03/2009 10:24:04: >> >> > [image removed] >> <snip> >> > > Outline -- >> > > 1) Use the WSDL 1.1 interface as the canonical interface language >> and >> > > require that "sameness" be determined after the interfaces are >> mapped to >> > > WSDL 1.1. >> > > >> > I don't think this is the right solution. We don't require (and >> shouldn't >> > require) that all SCA interfaces must be mappable to WSDL. The >> requirement >> > should be that the SCA interface types of the source and target >> interface >> > define mappings that can be applied to the target interface to produce >> > a representation of the target interface in the source interface >> language. >> > >> >> I disagree. I think that for remotable interfaces, it is right and >> reasonable >> to require that all interface types map to WSDL. If this is not done, >> then you >> have a difficult n x n mapping table to construct - and worse, I think >> it will >> be hard to know whether any particular binding can be used for that >> remotable >> interface. >> >> The requirement for mapping to WSDL allows a much simpler approach >> both to >> comparison of interfaces and also to the application of bindings. >> >> For local interfaces, WSDL mapping should not be a requirement, but >> there, >> the restrictions on mapping of interfaces will need to be spelled out. >> > The proposed text is for the wiring section. Wiring applies to local > interfaces as well as remotable interfaces. Any rules for wiring need > to apply to both local and remotable interfaces. The text proposed > by Anish does not meet this requirement. > Although the proposed text is for the wiring section. It should not be. I did not include that in my proposal as I knew that either you or I would be filing a separate issue for that (and you already have). Mixing of interfaces applies not just to wires but also to promotions, overriding interfaces specified in componentTypes (but configuring components). > The question about whether all remotable interfaces are required to be > mappable to WSDL is a separate issue. Currently, there is nothing in > the Assembly specification saying this and there is no open issue > concerning this. A number of interface specifications are owned by > other TCs and IMO the Assembly specification should not impose this as > a requirement on all of those other TCs and the interface specifications > that they create. Each interface specification should state whether or > not its remotable interfaces MUST be mappable to WSDL. Having these > other specs require this and define the mapping to WSDL would be the > normal case. For example, I think this mapping should be required and > defined for remotable Java interfaces. > > I believe the alternative text that I have proposed is sufficient to > define wiring rules without the need to mention WSDL. I am not sure > what the difficulty is with the application of bindings. Please can > you give more details of this. > > Requiring the compatibility test to be performed on mapped WSDL > doesn't work for some cases. Consider the following examples: > 1. A service uses interface.wsdl and a reference uses interface.java. > In this case the service interface needs to be mapped from > WSDL to Java and the compatibility test needs to be applied to > the reference's Java interface and the WSDL->Java mapping of the > service's interface. It would not be valid to map the reference's > interface from Java to WSDL using the Java->WSDL mapping and apply > the compatibility test to this mapped interface and the service's > interface, because the WSDL that will be used on the wire is the > service's WSDL and not the generated Java->WSDL mapping of the > reference. I'm not sure I understand this. If it is compatible, how does it matter whether it was generated or not? Not an assembly issue, but does JAX-WS take care of around tripping? Also, since JAX-WS defines annotations for mapping, wouldn't it be always better to go from Java->WSDL? > 2. A service uses interface.java and a reference uses interface.java. > The compatibility test needs to be applied directly to these Java > interfaces. It would not be valid to to map them both to WSDL > and apply the compatibility test to the generated WSDL, because > of the false positives that could occur if different Java types > map to the same WSDL type. > > Simon > >> <snip> >> > >> > Simon >> > >> > > -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/ >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]