ant elder wrote:
On 9/12/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mike Edwards wrote:
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
Having the WSDL "win" is as per the spec.
Here's from the SCA Web Services Binding spec:
70 2.1.1 Endpoint URI resolution
71 The rules for resolving the URI at which an SCA service is hosted, or
SCA reference targets,
72 when used with binding.ws (in precedence order) are:
73 1. The URIs in the endpoint(s) of the referenced WSDL
74 or
75 The URI specified by the wsa:Address element of the
wsa:EndpointReference,
76 2. The explicitly stated URI in the "uri" attribute of the binding.ws
element, which may be
77 relative,
78 3. The implicit URI as defined by the Assembly specification
The spec doesn't clearly define what to do in this exact situation, I think
thats a bug in the spec.
What's not clear?
What's the bug in the spec?
And it doesn't seem very user friendly to just
ignore a users input whether or not we give a warning as thats likely to
just get buried in a log somewhere, so i'd prefer and exception.
Forcing the application developer to modify the <binding.ws> and remove
the uri attribute, to be able to specify the SOAP address in his WSDL is
not user friendly either, and not in line with the spec.
Isn't that
what we agreed last time this came up -
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200707.mbox/browser.
This points to the whole July archive :)
...ant
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
