Four comments inlined below.
-Anish
--
Simon Nash wrote:
> See comments inline.
>
> Simon
>
> Mike Edwards wrote:
>>
>> Logged as Issue 166: _http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-116_
>>
>> Yours, Mike.
>>
>> Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
>> Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
>> IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
>> Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 Mobile: +44-7802-467431 Email:
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Anish Karmarkar <>
>> To: OASIS Assembly <>
>> Date: 26/02/2009 07:46
>> Subject: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: Interface compatibility refers
>> to input/output types which is ambiguous when using WSDL 1.1
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> Title: Interface compatibility refers to input/output types which is
>> ambiguous when using WSDL 1.1
>>
>> Description:
>> In ASM60017 it states:
>> "compatibility between the source interface and the target interface for
>> a wire for the individual operations is defined as compatibility of the
>> signature, that is operation name, input types, and output types MUST be
>> the same."
>>
>> There are two problems with this:
>> 1) We allow different interface languages to be used in SCA, so it is
>> not clear how the operation name and type comparison would be made to
>> determine if they are the "same".
>> 2) When using WSDL 1.1 interface, there are two "types" allowed: XML
>> Schema element decl or XML Schema type. How is "sameness" determined in
>> a case where the reference uses XML Schema element decl and the service
>> uses a XML Schema type.
>>
>> Proposal:
>>
>> Outline --
>> 1) Use the WSDL 1.1 interface as the canonical interface language and
>> require that "sameness" be determined after the interfaces are mapped to
>> WSDL 1.1.
> >
> I don't think this is the right solution. We don't require (and shouldn't
> require) that all SCA interfaces must be mappable to WSDL. The requirement
> should be that the SCA interface types of the source and target interface
> define mappings that can be applied to the target interface to produce
> a representation of the target interface in the source interface language.
>
Thanks for pointing this out. I had forgotten that we don't require
mapping to WSDL.
I'm curious why the mapping must be source->target ?
Won't it be right to allow either source->target or target->source ?
What happens if mapping between interface type A and type B is defined,
but mapping from B to A is not defined?
>> 2) Two interfaces A and B, where A uses XML Schema element decl and B
>> uses XML Schema type are considered incompatible.
>>
> I'm OK with this.
>
>> Text change --
>> replace ASM60017 with:
>> "compatibility between the source interface and the target interface for
>> a wire for the individual operations is defined as compatibility of the
>> signature, that is operation name, input types, and output types MUST be
>> the same, ***after the interfaces are mapped to WSDL 1.1 portTypes***."
>>
> Alternative proposal:
> 1. Do not make the above change to ASM60017.
> 2. Remove the following later paragraph that talks about interface types
> being equivalent:
> "A Wire can connect between different interface languages (eg. Java
> interfaces and WSDL portTypes) in either direction, as long as the
> operations defined by the two interface types are equivalent. They
> are equivalent if the operation(s), parameter(s), return value(s)
> and faults/exceptions map to each other."
I'm fine with this.
> 3. Add a new normative paragraph number 6 after ASM60019 as follows:
> "6. If the source and target interfaces have different SCA interface
> types representing different interface languages (e.g., Java interfaces
> and WSDL portTypes), the target interface MUST be mappable into the
> source interface language using mapping rules defined by the
> SCA interface type of the target interface and/or the SCA interface
> type of the source interface. [ASM600xx] In addition, the criteria
> specified in numbered points 1 through 5 above MUST be satisfied
> when applied to the source interface and the mapped target interface.
> [ASM600xx]"
Not sure why target->source is important.
>
>> add addition text as follows:
>> WSDL 1.1 message parts can point to XML Schema element declaration or
>> XML Schema types. When determining compatibility between two WSDL
>> operations, a message part that points to an XML Schema element
>> declaration is considered to be incompatible with a message part that
>> points to an XML Schema type.
>>
> Should this go in section 7.5 (WSDL interface type)?
That would make sense.
>
> Simon
>
>> -Anish
>> --
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>>
>>
>>
