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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

uddi-spec message

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


Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Comments on the "Using WSDL in a UDDI Registry, v2" TN


Luc,

 

Thanks for you comments.  My responses are as follows:

 

a. I was keen to avoid restricting the applicability of the TN and to allow it to be applied to any WSDL.  Looking at the footnote now, I would prefer to weaken it if anything (I did not write that footnote).

 

b. The V3 spec. covers this but I agree that A.2 could describe both V2 and V3 behaviour, given what is said in 2.3.5.

 

c. Again, the assumption was that the V2 API constructs would be mapped to V3 per the V3 spec.  We definitely decided not to require a V3 bindingTemplate to be categorized as that is not visible to a V2 client, and we did not want to duplicate information for a V3 client.  Section 2.5.2 is clear that the categoryBag on the bindingTemplate is optional.  As the tModel is not a categorization tModel then nobody should be tempted to try and use it as one.

 

John Colgrave

IBM

 

-----Original Message-----
From:
Luc Clément [mailto:luc@iclement.net]
Sent: 26 January 2004 06:07
To: '
John Colgrave'
Cc:
uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [uddi-spec] Comments on the "Using WSDL in a UDDI Registry, v2" TN

 

John,

 

I was reviewing the "Using WSDL in a UDDI Registry, v2" TN and noticed a few issues that I'd like to bring up to your attention and get comments from you.

 

a. Section 2.4.1 - Mandatory requirement to have a keyedReference to the "XML Namespace category system"

The text of 2.4.1 states that a keyedReference to the XML Namespace category system is mandatory, however, the footnote states ..."but applying the mapping defined in this TN to a WSDL definitions element that does not have a targetNamespace is not recommended."

 

I think the use of "not recommended" is incorrect and should be strengthened to "not allowed".

b. Section A.2 - Reference v2 behaviour but does not specify a v3 behaviour.

Section A.2 references v2 but does not describe v3 behaviour. v3 references are required (i.e. the useType of "endPoint" is required rather than URLType of "other")

c. Section B.9.1 - only references v2 but states nothing for v3

Presumably, we had intended that the v2 and v3 behaviours be the same; that said, it's not clear if this is really the case. Someone may be tempted (which I think should be mandatory - see below) to categorize a v3 bindingTemplate with the "WSDL Address" tModel. I think that this needs to be clarified.

 

Given the above, it would seem to me that for purpose of consistency with section 2.5.2, that for the case of v3, the bindingTemplate also MUST be categorized with a reference to the "WSDL Address" tModel. Note that this would require this tModel (B.9.1) to be changed to a "categorization" tModel and a valid value (B.9.3) be assigned (i.e. wsdl:address or something like that).

Thoughts?

 

Luc



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