Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 174 - Are multiple imports with the same namespaceallowed?

[Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>]

Jim Clune wrote:

I think the issue text describes the question that I would like resolved. It is true that this covers two cases:

1. The locations are different and the contents are different.

So how is this different from what I stated?

"As I read it, it is speaking to the issue of importing two WSDL files that have the same (target) namespace. Importing the same file more than once for example falls in the same category."

2. The locations are different but the contents are the same.

 

The first case is the one that motivated the issue. I would also expect resolution of this issue to determine whether the second case is illegal or just silly.

The second case is perfectly possible. If the locations are different but contents ate the same how would one know they are the same without doing a normative comparison of the contents of the two locations?

As an additional example you import a schema directly in the BPEL definition. And a WSDL you imported just prior to that also imports the same schema from the same or a different location. So effectively the schema  is being imported more than once.

It is neither silly nor should it be illegal. It is a practical scenario.

Cheers!

Jim Clune
Parasoft Corporation          email: jim.clune@parasoft.com
101 E. Huntington Ave.      voice: (626) 256-3680
Monrovia, CA.  91016           fax  : (626) 256-6884

----- Original Message -----

From: Prasad Yendluri

To: Jim Clune

Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org

Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:29 AM

Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 174 - Are multiple imports with the same namespace allowed?

Jim,

Thanks for clarification. However, as captured the issue does not state that. Here is what is stated in the issue text:

"Is it legal to have a BPEL process with two BPEL import elements 
each pointing to WSDLs of the same namespace, but different locations?
The Document Linking section of the spec does not explicitly disallow this."
    

If that is not what you are raising then we need to restate the issue IMO.

Regards, Prasad

Jim Clune wrote:

Just to clarify, Danny's interpretation is what I had in mind when submitting the issue. I agree with both of you that this is different than question 4 of Issue 88.

 

Jim Clune
Parasoft Corporation          email: jim.clune@parasoft.com
101 E. Huntington Ave.      voice: (626) 256-3680
Monrovia, CA.  91016           fax  : (626) 256-6884