Two comments inlined below.
-Anish
--
Simon Nash wrote:
> Mike Edwards wrote:
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Comments inline
>>
>> 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:
>>
>>
>> Simon Nash <> wrote on 02/03/2009 10:24:04:
>>
>> > [image removed]
>> <snip>
>> > > 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.
>> >
>>
>> I disagree. I think that for remotable interfaces, it is right and
>> reasonable
>> to require that all interface types map to WSDL. If this is not done,
>> then you
>> have a difficult n x n mapping table to construct - and worse, I think
>> it will
>> be hard to know whether any particular binding can be used for that
>> remotable
>> interface.
>>
>> The requirement for mapping to WSDL allows a much simpler approach
>> both to
>> comparison of interfaces and also to the application of bindings.
>>
>> For local interfaces, WSDL mapping should not be a requirement, but
>> there,
>> the restrictions on mapping of interfaces will need to be spelled out.
>>
> The proposed text is for the wiring section. Wiring applies to local
> interfaces as well as remotable interfaces. Any rules for wiring need
> to apply to both local and remotable interfaces. The text proposed
> by Anish does not meet this requirement.
>
Although the proposed text is for the wiring section. It should not be.
I did not include that in my proposal as I knew that either you or I
would be filing a separate issue for that (and you already have).
Mixing of interfaces applies not just to wires but also to promotions,
overriding interfaces specified in componentTypes (but configuring
components).
> The question about whether all remotable interfaces are required to be
> mappable to WSDL is a separate issue. Currently, there is nothing in
> the Assembly specification saying this and there is no open issue
> concerning this. A number of interface specifications are owned by
> other TCs and IMO the Assembly specification should not impose this as
> a requirement on all of those other TCs and the interface specifications
> that they create. Each interface specification should state whether or
> not its remotable interfaces MUST be mappable to WSDL. Having these
> other specs require this and define the mapping to WSDL would be the
> normal case. For example, I think this mapping should be required and
> defined for remotable Java interfaces.
>
> I believe the alternative text that I have proposed is sufficient to
> define wiring rules without the need to mention WSDL. I am not sure
> what the difficulty is with the application of bindings. Please can
> you give more details of this.
>
> Requiring the compatibility test to be performed on mapped WSDL
> doesn't work for some cases. Consider the following examples:
> 1. A service uses interface.wsdl and a reference uses interface.java.
> In this case the service interface needs to be mapped from
> WSDL to Java and the compatibility test needs to be applied to
> the reference's Java interface and the WSDL->Java mapping of the
> service's interface. It would not be valid to map the reference's
> interface from Java to WSDL using the Java->WSDL mapping and apply
> the compatibility test to this mapped interface and the service's
> interface, because the WSDL that will be used on the wire is the
> service's WSDL and not the generated Java->WSDL mapping of the
> reference.
I'm not sure I understand this.
If it is compatible, how does it matter whether it was generated or not?
Not an assembly issue, but does JAX-WS take care of around tripping?
Also, since JAX-WS defines annotations for mapping, wouldn't it be
always better to go from Java->WSDL?
> 2. A service uses interface.java and a reference uses interface.java.
> The compatibility test needs to be applied directly to these Java
> interfaces. It would not be valid to to map them both to WSDL
> and apply the compatibility test to the generated WSDL, because
> of the false positives that could occur if different Java types
> map to the same WSDL type.
>
> Simon
>
>> <snip>
>> >
>> > Simon
>> >
>> > > -Anish
>> > > --
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> /
>> /
>>
>> /Unless stated otherwise above:
>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
>> number 741598.
>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
>> 3AU/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
