Vivian Li wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Peter G. Lane [mailto:lane@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: 26 October 2006 15:20 To: Vivian Li Cc: ogsa-bes-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: BES schema/wsdl
Its only a matter of convention, and, it surly make life easier when talking about debug the tooling, (of course you can say this is out of the scope for now), but for the long run, it is a better practice, and the modification - only a cut/paste job. I don't see how it makes debugging tooling easier. I also haven't seen a compelling argument to be able to say it is inherently a better practice. But as I said, if it's a
Vivian Li wrote: trend that the working group wants to follow, fine. Regardless, until I see a convincing argument to the contrary, I'm sticking with my belief that it's better from an organizational point of view (think object oriented) to encapsulate in the WSDL document the set of schema types and elements that have no relevance outside of that WSDL.
Exactly - all the data types, including WSDL message types, (complexType & elements) that potentially will be generated as objects, should all go to the schema, WSDL document is only for messages and portTypes. I think that is a better organization.
You're misunderstanding me. I'm not advocating moving all the schema entities into the .xsd file. I'm still advocating keeping those schema entities that are only relevant to the WSDL (i.e. message types and elements) inside the WSDL document. No other WSDL or schema needs to import those entities. The only reason I think we need a separate .xsd file is because there are schema entities that are shared between WSDL documents (i.e. Activity port type). Also, since the WSDL has a schema section, you can't say that the WSDL is only for port types and messages. That's just a personal preference. Why would the WSDL spec creators put it in there if not to allow you to put schema entities in the WSDL document? Peter
Its your call.
Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Peter G. Lane [mailto:lane@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: 24 October 2006 16:55 To: Vivian Li Cc: ogsa-bes-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: BES schema/wsdl
I argued against this, actually, because the types that are in the WSDL don't have any applicability outside of the WSDL. That said, if the rest of the group thinks
Vivian that
convention is enough to overlook that, I'm not going to complain. We're trying to avoid large changes like this so we can release the spec for public review, so my vote would still be to leave it alone regardless.
Peter
Vivian Li wrote:
Another suggestion while browsing the BES schema/wsdl, it might be easier to maintain if the data types in the schema and the wsdl are separated completely, e.g. move the "Message Types" in the schema section from the wsdl to the schema file, it has been kind of convention in all the other WGs.
Vivian