-----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
Vivian Li wrote:
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 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.
Peter
Vivian
-----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
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. Its your call. 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
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
Peter G. Lane wrote:
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?
You both are right, actually, as both approaches are valid. However, when developing WSDL, tools often are limited in not supporting the leading edge versions like, say, SOAP 1.2, WSDL 2.0 or whatever. So, you often end up messing around by hand in those WSDL files. And then separate XML Schema files get very handy in that they allow you to validate your XML elements. So far, I haven't seen any XML hacking tool that not only validates WSDL against the WSDL XML Schema, but also all XML Schema (or any other like RelaxNG for that matter) that's inside the wsdl:types element. Finally, probably a personal preference, one should keep XML Schema documents (everything in wsdl:types) and XML instance documents separate, and not mix them into one document. Using this approach helped us a great deal in ByteIO to find some possibly treacherous bugs in the ByteIO schemas. Just my 2 cents. Cheers, Michel -- Michel <dot> Drescher <at> uk <dot> fujitsu <dot> com Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe +44 20 8606 4834
Michel Drescher wrote:
So far, I haven't seen any XML hacking tool that not only validates WSDL against the WSDL XML Schema, but also all XML Schema (or any other like RelaxNG for that matter) that's inside the wsdl:types element.
I think the validator used in the Eclipse Web Service Tools plugin does that integrated validation. I'm not sure though, as I always use it with a separate XML schema instead. :-) Another good reason for a separate schema is that it makes it far easier to reuse types between different bindings. Donal.
participants (4)
-
Donal K. Fellows -
Michel Drescher -
Peter G. Lane -
Vivian Li