1.0rc1 WSDL issues
mjg at cacr.caltech.edu
Thu Jun 15 12:37:16 PDT 2006
Guy Rixon wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Matthew Graham wrote:
>>5. doc/lit wrapped style: The rules are: the input message has a single
>>part; the part is an element; the element has the same name as the
>>operation; and the element's complex type has no attributes. I favour
>>using global types since it promotes reusability.
>So the answer is to use all global types and global elements only for the
>top-level messages? This suggests that the .xsd file will be all types and the
>elements will only be in the schema embedded in the WSDL.
If we are going to have a separate schema then this makes quite a nice
division: it might also provide quite a nice extensibility mechanism
since what changes is the type in the schema not anything directly in
>>12. DIME: In Madrid, we agreed that we would deprecate DIME as it itself
>>has long been deprecated. With the support for MTOM now in Axis 2, WSE,
>>XFire, etc., I would rather that we suggest MTOM as the attachment
>>mechanism. DIME is also incompatible with WS-Security so you cannot
>>include a DIME attachment on a secure SOAP message. Attachments are just
>>another form of transport mechanism and I think we should keep messaging
>>and transport separate so the import and export operations should not
>>accept attachments: there should be separate endpoints for this as
>>suggested in the spec.
>I agree with dumping DIME in favour of MTOM.
Dave does have a point, however, about MTOM support. I think that we
should leave DIME in now but note that it will be deprecated in the next
release and also introduce MTOM as the successor.
More information about the vospace