[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
From: John Colgrave [mailto:colgrave@hursley.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 07:11 To: 'Luc Clément' Cc: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org 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).
[LC] The problem that I'm having with the footnote and allowing the TN to apply with any WSDL is the following: an inquirer that follows the TN will not (as it's suggested in the footnote) obtain these tModels given that the keyedReference with a tModelKey of the XML Namespace category system is missing from the tModel's categorization.
The footnote states "and queries for these tModels based solely on the tModel name could return multiple results because no namespace can be specified."; this is incorrect from the perspective of an inquiry that specifies two keyReferences (portType and namespace) iaw this TN.
I'd be content if we changed the last sentence of the footnote to:
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.
I think that we should perform a complete mapping as I suggested below (with the need to update the WSDL Address tModel) or revisit why section 2.5.2 Optional Extensions is in the TN; perhaps it shouldn't be. -- Luc
John Colgrave IBM
-----Original
Message-----
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"
b. Section A.2 - Reference v2 behaviour but does not specify a v3 behaviour.
c. Section B.9.1 - only references v2 but states nothing for v3
Thoughts?
Luc |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]