[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] WSDL Issues
Okay. I've changed the WSDLs to represent the Content element as an attachment. I found this document [1] to be helpful in figuring out how to describe the Mime elements. In registry-abstract: I changed the <types> section -- removed the complex types and elements that I had defined before. Now there are only two elements defined -- Content and dispositionReport. I changed the first three <messages> -- now there are two parts again. The first (name="body") references the appropriate schema element, and the second (name="attachment") references the Content element. In registry-soap: I added the <mime> elements to the appropriate <input> and <output> elements. I also noticed another possible error: In registry-abstract, on the UpdateObjects operation, shouldn't the output message be msgRegistryResponse? [1] http://ws.apache.org/wsif/developers/mime_attachments.pdf Best regards, Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Farrukh Najmi" <farrukh.najmi@sun.com> To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net> Cc: <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>; "matt" <matt@yellowdragonsoft.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 10:02 PM Subject: Re: [regrep] WSDL Issues > Anne Thomas Manes wrote: > > >Some questions and comments: > > > > > >If partContent is required to be included in the input message, why is it > >not included in the message structure? Also, keep in mind that WS-I BP > >permits only one <part> on document/literal messages, so to be WS-I > >compliant, you would have to include it in the message structure. > > > >One reason why you might want to define multiple parts in a message > >definition is to define header or headerfault messages (which should always > >be defined as document/literal) -- but in that case you should always > >reference the specific part to be used in the <binding> elements. e.g.: > > > > <message name='foo'> > > <part name='body' element='foobody' /> > > <part name='header' element='fooheader' /> > > <part name='headerfault' element='fooheaderfault' /> > > </message> > > > > <soap:body parts='body' use='literal' /> > > <soap:header message='tns:foo' part='header' use='literal' /> > > <soap:headerfault message='tns:foo' part='headerfault' use='literal' /> > > > >Bottom line: the three messages containing partContent have to be fixed. > > > > > > > Anne, the messages with partContent are those that are supposed to > support mime attachments. Clearly we seem to have lost > > <mime:multipartRelated> > > in the input and output element defs for these operations. I suspect > this was silently swallowed by a tool I used. I will doublecheck this. > > I know that WS-I BP does not touch attachments. Are there any other > considerations besides just following? > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-wsdl12-bindings-20030611/#_mime > > > > -- > Farrukh > > > > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup. php >
ÿþ<