OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-assembly message

[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.


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 

> 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]