Folks,
Comments inline
Yours, Mike.
ant elder wrote:
Had this over on the user list about how the binding.ws uri is ignored if
you use wsdlElement with #wsdl.port. We used to throw an exception in that
case which I think makes things much clearer but that code has been changed
so that no longer happens. Was that removed intentionally or could i add it
back?
...ant
So, the question is that if both the URI and a WSDL are used, then they
can conflict?
From what you say, the WSDL wins "silently" in the current code. As a
result, looking at the URI in the SCDL does not help - it is confusing.
I think that at least a warning is called for. Whether an exception is
the right thing, I'm less sure. The general rule with SCA WS binding is
that once you start using WSDL, then it is taken as gospel. That is
true for all kinds of metadata that can live in the WSDL.
Only serious conflicts such as mismatch of interfaces or inability to
satisfy specified intents should really cause exceptions. However,
warnings of conflicts seem useful since it will bring the user's
attention to what may indeed be a problem.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sep 12, 2007 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: uri of binding.ws should be used restrictedly
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 9/12/07, shaoguang geng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello every one,
uri attribute of <binding.ws/> is much convenient to attach a WS in.
But it works only within a few circumstances, such as another java
generated WS provided by Tuscany, JAXWS.
But much more WS is complecated, such as JBoss or even a Tuscany WS when
the wsdl becomes delicate.
I love the phrasing here. "WSDL becomes delicate" - may rather be said
that the poor programmer's brain becomes delicate, once the WSDL gets
complex. I'd far rather not deal with the WSDL, but I accept that is
not practical for some cases. In these cases, you hope that the
programmer can simply pick up the WSDL for some remote web service and
use it without having to inspect it. The only thing they should need to
do is run WSDL2Java against it to render a nice Java interface for the
service that they use in their code. Otherwise, it's an opaque cookie.
Under these circumstances, pre loading wsdl (locally save the wsdl) and
use "wsdlElement" will do most of them. Up to now, I have gone over it with
JBoss and ODE.
So I just think, to make things frank, I would suggest that Tuscany user
should be warned of uri's limitation, and encouraged of using wsdl
preloading.
The uri attribute should always get used unless the wsdlElement is pointing
at the port (ie using "#wsdl.port") in which case the uri attribute is
ignored. So you can use both uri and pre loaded wsdl as long as you use
#wsdl.binding within the wsdlElement.
I agree its confusing that the uri can get completely ignored, the code did
used to throw an exception in that case so it was obvious there was a
conflict, i'll bring it up on the dev list to see if we can add that back.
...ant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
