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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-bindings message

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

Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Updated WSDL generation - a.k.a. web service bindingdefaults

My comments inlined below.


Eric Johnson wrote:
48599189.9080007@tibco.com" type="cite">Based on the minutes of the meeting of 2008-05-29, I've made a few edits.  Since I was MIA for the meeting, my understanding of the discussion might be somewhat misguided.  Additions shown with underscore, deletions shown with strike-through.

I see one key question worth floating to the top:
Suppose someone puts <binding.ws/> on a service with no further qualifications.  Per default binding rules in the new proposal, this will enable an endpoint that supports SOAP 1.1 over HTTP.  Must this be the only WSDL 1,1 port for the binding, or could an implementation choose to simultaneously implement a SOAP 1.2 binding, and if it implements an additional binding, must it be at the same endpoint, or can it be at a different endpoint?  Put differently, if an SCA end-user wants to support both SOAP 1.1 & SOAP 1.2 at the same HTTP URL:
  • Can a vendor automatically expose those two different WSDL ports on the same URL endpoint, supporting both SOAP 1.1 & SOAP 1.2, and the end-user only declares a single <binding.ws/> element?
  • Or does the end-user have to define two different binding.ws elements (and then has to use policy intents to indicate which binding element is which)
As I mentioned in last week's call. I prefer that we do not constraint the deployer (or the runtime/vendor) on this.
<binding.ws/> means that a <wsdl:port>, which is bound to the WSDL SOAP 1.1, must be made available. Nothing more.

If there are additional <wsdl:port> elements in the same <wsdl:service> or in different <wsdl:service> is none of our business. I.e. out of scope for SCA specifications. Whether additional <wsdl:port> that are made available have the same value of <soap:address> or different values that get HTTP redirected to the same thing, or aliases to the same thing or something completely different and unconnected -- we shouldn't say. That is for the deployer/policy czars runtimes to figure out.
48599189.9080007@tibco.com" type="cite">
  • .
Responding to the notes from the meeting:

Scribe: Simon H. look through the proposal, appendix B
Scribe: Set of 5 rules, around def of the name space
Scribe: Comments on the proposal
Scribe: Anish: is the description an example?
    Me: Assuming this is still referring to Appendix B, yes - certainly not normative.

Scribe: Simon H: the wording suggests its a recommended approach
    Me: I added text indicating that appendix B is non-normative.

Scribe: Simon N: Should parts be included
    Me: ???
Scribe: Anish: Importing PortType, the imported doc will have reference to message and schema, its importing recursively, if its inlined, correct import has to be present
Scribe: No other comments, document had not yet been reviewed by all
Scribe: Simon N: not consistent normative language in the proposal
    Me: Specifics here would help me out.

Scribe: Bryan: Not clear whether its WSDL 1.1 or 2.0, should be explicit
    Me: Which section?
Scribe: Bryan, comment for section 4.2 (Default Binding)
Scribe: Simon N: should we have different versions of the section ?
    Me: Two versions to cover what?  SOAP 1.1 vs SOAP 1.2 or WSDL 1.1 vs. WSDL 2.0?  Or something else.  I don't see the need, so I think I need clarification.

Scribe: Mentions SOAP 1.2
Scribe: Section or each item is compared against policy ?
Scribe: Ambiguous as to it should be applied whole as opposed to each item separately
    Me: My take is that policy is explicit orthogonal to the default binding.  That's why I put in the sentence "In the event that transport details are not determined elsewhere...".  Elsewhere could include binding details, policy choices, or vendor extensions.

Scribe: In 4.2.1, if there is no policy, RT may support 1.1 or 1.2, but then second bullet says 1.1
Scribe: Mike E: proposal is not consistent
Scribe: We need author to explain the intentions to help with wording
Scribe: Go back to Eric for clarification
    Me: I think I understand the concern here, but I'm not sure.  The text "the following configuration SHOULD be used" is wonderfully vague.
    My intent here was to allow for the possibility that the WSDL generator could publish multiple WSDL 1.1 "ports" as a consequence of WSDL generation related to a single binding.ws element.  A consequence of this would be a service that supports both SOAP 1.1 & SOAP 1.2 form invocations at the same endpoint.  This results in the apparently contradictory statements that SOAP 1.1 should be used (bullet 2), but then that in the case of SOAP 1.2, how to carry the "action" parameter (bullet 7).  This relates to the question I put at the top of this email.

Scribe: Last bullet of 4.2
Scribe: should not be dependent on any policy affecting how you generate WSDL
Scribe: Anish: 4.2, except last bullet should be mandatory
Scribe: Should --> Must
    Me: I don't see the value of putting a "MUST" inside of a section for which the entire contents is a "should."

Scribe: If you don't specify anything, the WS binding is described in 4.2
Scribe: Simon H: if you don't specify anything, you are guaranteed interoperability, once you start specifying things, you don't have interop
Scribe: Anish: Autogeneration of WSDL should be supported, rules to generate WSDL
    Me: ???  I don't think I understand Anish's comment.  Once we've fully specified what the SOAP messages look like, why do we need to spell out how the WSDL gets generated?  What's the use case where the SCA bindings TC needs to spell this out?

Scribe: Simon N: SOAP version spelling
Scribe: Square bracket with two versions
    Me: details?

4 Transport Binding

The binding.ws element provides numerous ways to specify exactly how messages ought to be transmitted from or to the reference or service. Those ways include references to WSDL binding elements from the @wsdlElement attribute, policy intents, and even vendor extensions within the binding.ws element. However, all of those ways to indicate how messages get carried happen to be optional. This section describes the defaults that ought be used if the specific transport details are not otherwise specified.

s/ought to be used/are used/
48599189.9080007@tibco.com" type="cite">

4.1 Intents

So as to narrow the range of choices for how messages are carried, the following policy intents affect the transport binding.

  • soap
    This indicates that messages MUST be transmitted using SOAP. One or more SOAP versions can be used.

  • soap.1_1
    Messages MUST be transmitted using only SOAP 1.1.

  • soap.1_2
    Messages MUST be transmitted using only SOAP 1.2.

4.2 Default Binding

In the event that the transport details are not determined elsewhere, a conforming implementation SHOULD enable the following configuration SHOULD be used:

Given that this is about empty <binding.ws/>, I'm not sure what 'elsewhere' is.
Why is it 'SHOULD'? I expected a 'MUST'.

48599189.9080007@tibco.com" type="cite">
  • HTTP-based transport

s/HTTP-based transport/HTTP transfer protocol/
48599189.9080007@tibco.com" type="cite">

  • Use Except when policy mandates the use of SOAP 1.2, support SOAP 1.1

Shouldn't we say that if there is no soap 1.2 policy/intent then it must be soap 1.1?
48599189.9080007@tibco.com" type="cite">

  • “literal” format as described in section 3.5 of [WSDL11]

  • For messages that have a single part, the message uses “document” style, as per section 3.5 of [WSDL11].

  • For messages that have multiple parts, the message uses “rpc” style, as per section 3.5 of [WSDL11]. In this case, the child elements of the SOAP Body element must be namespace qualified with a non-empty namespace name.

Didn't we agree that empty <binding.ws> when using WSDL 1.1 would be BP complaint. If so, and if we say that then the above 2 bullets can be removed.

Also, most of the bullet here talk about WSDL 1.1. Are we saying that empty <binding.ws> means that WSDL 1.1 must be used? If so, which I would perfectly happy with given that WSDL 2.0 is not widely implemented, we should say that.

48599189.9080007@tibco.com" type="cite">

  • For SOAP 1.1 messages, the SOAPAction header described in section 6.1.1 represents the empty string, in quotes (“”).

  • For SOAP 1.2 messages, the optional SOAP Action feature described in section 6.5 of [SOAP12Adjuncts] does not appear.

  • All message parts are carried in the body of the message

4.2.1 SOAP versions

Where no specific version of SOAP has been dictated, an SCA runtime might support both version 1.1 and version 1.2.

I think we need to say SOAP 1.1 must be supported. Whether SOAP 1.2 is supported or not we don't have to say.
48599189.9080007@tibco.com" type="cite">

4.3 WSDL portType or interface

An SCA service has a single interface description. For the Web Services binding, this interface description MUST be converted into one or both of a WSDL 1.1 portType or a WSDL 2.0 interface.

Should we mandate WSDL 1.1? By mandate I mean that WSDL 1.1 description must be generated. Whether you also make the equivalent WSDL 2.0 description available we shouldn't say.
48599189.9080007@tibco.com" type="cite">

B. Appendix - WSDL Generation

Due to the number of factors that determine how a WSDL might be generated, including compatibility with existing WSDL uses, precise details cannot be specified. For example, policy implementation decisions can affect the way WSDL might be generated. For reference, and possible consistency, this section picks optionssuggests non-normative choices for some of the various details involved in generating WSDL.

  • wsdl:definitions/@targetNamespace = <HTTP Base URI> + “/” + <componentName> + “/” + <serviceName>

  • import each WSDL 1.1 portType or WSDL 2.0 interface, rather than putting them inline

What if the interface is specified as Java interface?  Must the generated portType not be inlined?
48599189.9080007@tibco.com" type="cite">

  • wsdl:binding/@name = <name of binding> + <SOAP Version> + “Binding”

  • wsdl:service/@name = <name of the service>

  • wsdl:port/@name = <name of binding> + <SOAP Version> + “Port”

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. You may a link to this group and 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]