You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by ant elder <an...@gmail.com> on 2007/09/12 09:50:23 UTC
Fwd: uri of binding.ws should be used restrictedly
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
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ant elder <an...@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 12, 2007 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: uri of binding.ws should be used restrictedly
To: tuscany-user@ws.apache.org
On 9/12/07, shaoguang geng <ge...@yahoo.com> 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.
>
> 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
Re: uri of binding.ws should be used restrictedly
Posted by Venkata Krishnan <fo...@gmail.com>.
Hi, as far as I recollect there was a discussion around this....(am still
trying to pull that thread out) and the exception was intentionally pulled
out. I guess a WARNING is something that we must throw at the least.
- Venkat
On 9/12/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> 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
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: ant elder <an...@gmail.com>
> Date: Sep 12, 2007 8:46 AM
> Subject: Re: uri of binding.ws should be used restrictedly
> To: tuscany-user@ws.apache.org
>
>
>
> On 9/12/07, shaoguang geng <ge...@yahoo.com> 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.
> >
> > 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
>
Re: Fwd: uri of binding.ws should be used restrictedly
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On 9/12/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> ant elder wrote:
> > On 9/12/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> 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 <an...@gmail.com>
> >>>> Date: Sep 12, 2007 8:46 AM
> >>>> Subject: Re: uri of binding.ws should be used restrictedly
> >>>> To: tuscany-user@ws.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 9/12/07, shaoguang geng <ge...@yahoo.com> 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?
The same thing as why it goes on in line 84/85 to say you can't have an EPR
and wsdlElement port together
What's the bug in the spec?
Line 84/85 should continue on to say what to do about when you specify a uri
attribute together with a wsdl port or EPR.
> 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.
I just don't see that as a very common thing to want to be doing.
> 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 :)
Oops,
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200707.mbox/%3c001f01c7c70a$ae8412c0$6601a8c0@rfengt60p%3e
Re: Fwd: uri of binding.ws should be used restrictedly
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
ant elder wrote:
> On 9/12/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> 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 <an...@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Sep 12, 2007 8:46 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: uri of binding.ws should be used restrictedly
>>>> To: tuscany-user@ws.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/12/07, shaoguang geng <ge...@yahoo.com> 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: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Fwd: uri of binding.ws should be used restrictedly
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On 9/12/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> 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 <an...@gmail.com>
> >> Date: Sep 12, 2007 8:46 AM
> >> Subject: Re: uri of binding.ws should be used restrictedly
> >> To: tuscany-user@ws.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9/12/07, shaoguang geng <ge...@yahoo.com> 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.
The spec doesn't clearly define what to do in this exact situation, I think
thats a 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. Isn't that
what we agreed last time this came up -
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200707.mbox/browser.
...ant
Re: Fwd: uri of binding.ws should be used restrictedly
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
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 <an...@gmail.com>
>> Date: Sep 12, 2007 8:46 AM
>> Subject: Re: uri of binding.ws should be used restrictedly
>> To: tuscany-user@ws.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/12/07, shaoguang geng <ge...@yahoo.com> 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.
+1 to log a [WARNING].
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Fwd: uri of binding.ws should be used restrictedly
Posted by Mike Edwards <mi...@gmail.com>.
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 <an...@gmail.com>
> Date: Sep 12, 2007 8:46 AM
> Subject: Re: uri of binding.ws should be used restrictedly
> To: tuscany-user@ws.apache.org
>
>
>
> On 9/12/07, shaoguang geng <ge...@yahoo.com> 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: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Fwd: uri of binding.ws should be used restrictedly
Posted by shaoguang geng <ge...@yahoo.com>.
Hi, Ant,
I just think respected code is ok, uri is just from osoa's specification. The theory is convenient, but the fact is not (web service is some thing good but too loosely coupled).
ant elder <an...@gmail.com> 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
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ant elder
Date: Sep 12, 2007 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: uri of binding.ws should be used restrictedly
To: tuscany-user@ws.apache.org
On 9/12/07, shaoguang geng wrote:
>
> Hello every one,
>
> uri attribute of 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.
>
> 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
---------------------------------
Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos.