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] NEW ISSUE (v1.2): Remotable interface compatibilityshould not be restricted to a WSDL 1.1 mapping


I realize that we have not opened this issue yet. but I recognize the validity of allowing transport representations other than XML documents.

Having said that, there seems to be an assumption here that WSDL 1.1 requires a XML 1.0 data format and the use of the XSD type system.  This is not correct.  WSDL 1.1 explicitly allows for other type systems and also notes that the XSD type system can be used even if the data format is not XML 1.0.  I am not sure if the WS-I Basic profiles require either the use of the XSD type system or an XML 1.0 data format, but I do not believe that the Assembly spec currently says anything about WSI-Basic Profile compliance.

An excellent view of how a view of the XSD type system can be used with other data formats is defined in the Data Format Description Language (DFDL) specification (being defined by an Open Grid Forum WG - http://forge.gridforum.org/projects/dfdl-wg/)   The public review draft is here: http://www.ogf.org/Public_Comment_Docs/Documents/2010-03/draft-gwdrp-dfdl-core-v1.0.pdf  DFDL allows data to be mapped between native formats (binary, textual) and information sets – and thus XML.  The information set is described using XSDL types and annotated constructs. The data can contain any character in ISO 10646, including those not legal in XML documents. In addition to facet validation, assertions can be added to test data during parsing. Allows data from native representation to be excluded from the information set, information set values to be calculated on parse and native representation data to be calculated on generation.

I am not positive that DFDL will cover all of the use cases Eric notes, but it would appear that:
1) A number of the are currently possible
2) The assembly spec could be clearer and more robust in the treatment of this topic.

Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
WW Center of Excellence for Enterprise Systems & Banking Center of Excellence Application Integration Architect

Research Triangle Park,  NC
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com



From: Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>
To: OASIS SCA Assembly <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 06/29/2010 05:14 AM
Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE (v1.2): Remotable interface compatibility should not be restricted to a WSDL 1.1 mapping






Logged as:
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-235

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


From: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
To: OASIS SCA Assembly <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 28/06/2010 18:56
Subject: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE (v1.2): Remotable interface compatibility should not be restricted to a WSDL 1.1 mapping






Target: sca-assembly-1.2-spec-wd01.doc

Title: Remotable interface compatibility should not be restricted to a WSDL 1.1 mapping

Description:

The latest version of the Assembly specification (sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd05), in section 6.2, defines interface compatibility in section 6.2.1, item #6 "for checking the compatibility of 2 remotable interfaces which are in different interface languages, both are mapped to WSDL 1.1 (if not already WSDL 1.1) and compatibility checking is done between the WSDL 1.1 mapped interfaces."

There are various reasons why this will fall over and not behave as expected.

False positives:
False negatives: (Partial) Proposal:

Remoting compatibility should not be restricted to WSDL 1.1 mappings.  Interface type definitions ought to be allowed to at least define a compatible relationship with themselves.

-Eric.






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







[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]