I think you were right the first time. The point about the default value of
portType/operation/input@name is telling.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: [wsif] Bug 13038 - WSIF's dynamic port/operation creation
confusion about message names
> OK, this is an edge case. Nirmal's right probably in terms
> of how the spec is today, but it really should be that if
> the user does give a name in one place, then it must be
> that that matches with the name in the other place (whether
> it was auto-gen'ed or manually-gen'ed).
>
> BTW, the W3C WSDL WG has decided to remove operation overloading
> from WSDL 1.2. Phew.
>
> Sanjiva.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nirmal Mukhi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 8:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [wsif] Bug 13038 - WSIF's dynamic port/operation creation
> confusion about message names
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > If the operation name is unique (i.e. the operation is not overloaded)
my
> > reading of the spec tells me that it doesn't matter if the input/output
> > names don't match (the binding operation matches with the abstract one
> > irrespective of that). IMO the binding operation's input and output
names
> > don't matter (for the purposes of matching with an abstract operation)
> > unless there is a need to resolve operation overloading.
> >
> > Nirmal.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Owen D
> > Burroughs" To:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc:
> > > Subject: Re: [wsif] Bug
> 13038 - WSIF's dynamic port/operation creation confusion
> > about message names
> > 10/01/2002 06:48
>
> > AM
> > Please respond to
> > axis-dev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ant,
> >
> > I think there is a scenario that your proposed fix allows that possibly
it
> > shouldn't:
> >
> > If there is one operation in the port type with the name "op1" and one
> > operation in the binding with the same name, your code matches the two
> > operations regardless of what the input and output names are. I believe
> > that this would be incorrect when the input (output) name is set on both
> > operations but with a different value, for example in the port type,
> > operation "op1" has an input name of "in1" but in the binding the
> operation
> > "op1" has an input name on "in2". The WSDL spec makes the input/output
> > names on port type and binding operations optional, but does state that
> for
> > overloaded operations the names should match. Can this be interpreted
> > further to mean that if these names are specified in both the port type
> and
> > the binding then they should match?
> >
> > I would ask, if the input/output names are specified in both the port
type
> > operation and the binding operation, but don't match, is this valid
wsdl?
> >
> > What does anyone else think?
> >
> > Owen
> >
> >
> >
> > |---------+---------------------------->
> > | | Anthony |
> > | | Elder/UK/IBM@IBMG|
> > | | B |
> > | | |
> > | | 01/10/2002 08:59 |
> > | | Please respond to|
> > | | axis-dev |
> > | | |
> > |---------+---------------------------->
> > >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> >
> > |
> > |
> > | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > |
> > | cc:
> > |
> > | Subject: Re: [wsif] Bug 13038 - WSIF's dynamic port/operation
> > creation confusion about message names
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > So Jeff can get past the problem, if I don't hear otherwise from anyone
> > I'll commit this later today and change the AXIS provider to use it.
> >
> > ...ant
> >
> > Anthony Elder
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Web Services Development
> > IBM UK Laboratories, Hursley Park
> > (+44) 01962 818320, x248320, MP208.
> >
> >
> > Anthony Elder/UK/IBM@IBMGB on 30/09/2002 09:46:17
> >
> > Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > cc:
> > Subject: Re: [wsif] Bug 13038 - WSIF's dynamic port/operation
creation
> > confusion about message names
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I think I agree with Jeff. If there is only one binding operation that
> > matches the portType operation then WSIF should use it regardless of the
> > input/output message names.
> >
> > How about adding the something like the following code to WSIFUtils and
> > changing the providers to use it instead of the WSDL4J
> > BindingImpl.getBindingOperation method? This code doesn't take into
> account
> > the default portType names described in the 2.4.5 in the WSDL spec, I
> think
> > WSDL4J should really be doing that in the javax.wsdl.Input/Output
classes.
> >
> >
> > public static BindingOperation getBindingOperation(
> > Binding binding,
> > String opName,
> > String inName,
> > String outName) throws WSIFException {
> >
> > BindingOperation bo = null;
> > if (binding != null && opName != null) {
> > ArrayList matchingOps = new ArrayList();
> > List bops = binding.getBindingOperations();
> > if (bops != null) {
> > for (Iterator i = bops.iterator(); i.hasNext();) {
> > BindingOperation bop = (BindingOperation) i.next();
> > if ( opName.equals(bop.getName()) ) {
> > matchingOps.add(bop);
> > }
> > }
> > if (matchingOps.size() == 1) {
> > bo = (BindingOperation) matchingOps.get(0);
> > } else if (matchingOps.size() > 1) {
> > bo = chooseBindingOperation(matchingOps, inName,
outName);
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > return bo;
> > }
> >
> > private static BindingOperation chooseBindingOperation(
> > ArrayList bindingOps,
> > String inName,
> > String outName) throws WSIFException {
> >
> > BindingOperation choosenOp = null;
> > for (Iterator i = bindingOps.iterator(); i.hasNext(); ) {
> > BindingOperation bop = (BindingOperation) i.next();
> > String binName = (bop.getBindingInput() == null) ?
> > null :
> > bop.getBindingInput().getName();
> > String boutName = (bop.getBindingOutput() == null) ?
> > null :
> > bop.getBindingOutput().getName();
> > if ((inName == null) ? binName == null :
inName.equals(binName))
> {
> > if ((outName == null)
> > ? boutName == null
> > : outName.equals(boutName)) {
> > if ( choosenOp == null ) {
> > choosenOp = bop;
> > } else {
> > throw new WSIFException(
> > "duplicate operation in binding: " +
> > bop.getName() +
> > ":" + inName +
> > ":" + outName );
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > return choosenOp;
> > }
> >
> >
> > ...ant
> >
> > Anthony Elder
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Web Services Development
> > IBM UK Laboratories, Hursley Park
> > (+44) 01962 818320, x248320, MP208.
> >
> >
> > "Jeff Greif" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 27/09/2002 18:41:44
> >
> > Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > cc:
> > Subject: Re: [wsif] Bug 13038 - WSIF's dynamic port/operation
creation
> > confusion about message names
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe the following to be a correct reading of the spec:
> >
> > 1. The portType/operation and binding/operation elements each have
name
> > attributes which are required and must match.
> > 2. The portType/operation/{input, output} elements have message
> > attributes which are required and must match the message element names.
> > 3. The portType/operation/{input, output} elements have name
attributes
> > which are optional according to the grammar but default to values given
by
> > an algorithm in section 2.4.5 if not provided.
> > 4. The binding/operation/{input, output} elements do *not* have name
> > attributes, according to the schema in the appendix, but are allowed to
> > have
> > names according to section 2.5. However, the improved schema for wsdl
> > currrently at the xmlsoap.org site *does* have optional name attributes
on
> > these messages.
> > 5. The spec does not explicitly say in section 2.5 that
> > binding/operation/input@name must match portType/operation/input@name
(and
> > similarly for output) if an ambiguity needs to be resolved where there
are
> > two or more possible operations on the same portType with the same name,
> > but
> > clearly, this is the only possible way to do it with the given
> information.
> >
> > Using that improved schema, the change A. Elder suggested to the
> XEMBL.wsdl
> > mentioned in the bug report (providing name attributes to the
> > binding/operation/{input,output} elements, preserves its validity.
> Against
> > the schema in the appendix to the spec, I think the change would be
> > invalid.
> > Forcing rewrites of wsdl descriptors already in use for a considerable
> time
> > seems like a bad idea, given that in this case, there are no
ambiguities.
> > The correct operation can be determined from the operation name alone,
so
> > failing to determine is probably not acceptable, and newly requiring
> values
> > of attributes which are supposed to be optional except when needed to
> > resolve ambiguity should probably not be acceptable either.
> >
> > The question raised by O. Burroughs, as to whether it's legal to specify
> > the
> > portType/operation/input@name but not the binding/operation/input@name
> > seems
> > to me to have a definite answer. The latter attributes are optional,
but
> > the former attributes are optional but have a default value according to
> > 2.4.5, hence always exist implicitly at least. Thus, if the latter
> > attributes must be allowed to be unspecified as long as there is no
> > amibiguity.
> >
> > Thus, the getBindingOperation code must be prepared to find an operation
> > without the help of binding/operation/input and output message names,
> > unless
> > an ambiguity has to be resolved.
> >
> > Jeff
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Owen D Burroughs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 4:36 AM
> > Subject: Re: [wsif] Bug 13038 - WSIF's dynamic port/operation creation
> > confusion about message names
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Ant,
> > >
> > > You misquoted me slightly :-)
> > >
> > > Here's a slightly more detailed version of my proposed "wsif-only"
fix:
> > >
> > > Try to find the bindingOperation using the input/output names given.
> Then
> > > if no match is found, try using null for the input/output names. If a
> > match
> > > is then found we know that only one operation exists in the binding
with
> > > the same name as the operation we're looking for (for more details see
> > the
> > > com.ibm.wsdl.BindingImpl.getBindingOperation method in wsdl4j). Now
> check
> > > the input/output names of the "matched" bindingOperation object. If
they
> > > are null then we accept it as a match. If they are not null then we
> > > consider it to be a different operation.
> > >
> > > One downside to this is that you inspect/iterate over the binding
> > > operations twice. It's also still up for debate as to whether
specifying
> > > input/output names in a port type operation and not specifying them in
> > the
> > > corresponding binding operation is valid. The spec suggests it isn't
for
> > > overloaded operations, which makes sense, but seems to allow any
> > > combination of port type/binding, input/output names for
non-overloaded
> > > operations.
> > >
> > > Owen
> > >
> > > Owen Burroughs
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > |---------+---------------------------->
> > > | | Anthony |
> > > | | Elder/UK/IBM@IBMG|
> > > | | B |
> > > | | |
> > > | | 27/09/2002 11:58 |
> > > | | Please respond to|
> > > | | axis-dev |
> > > | | |
> > > |---------+---------------------------->
> > >
> > >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------|
> > > |
> > |
> > > | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > |
> > > | cc: "Jeff Greif" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > |
> > > | Subject: [wsif] Bug 13038 - WSIF's dynamic port/operation
> > creation confusion about message names
> > |
> > > |
> > |
> > > |
> > |
> > >
> > >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------|
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There's a bugzilla bug raised for wsif,
> > > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13038, to do with
wsif
> > > not correctly finding an operation.
> > >
> > > The problem is because the wsdl,
http://www.ebi.ac.uk/xembl/XEMBL.wsdl,
> > > specifies an input name on the operation in the portType, but does not
> > > specify a name on the input in the binding. This causes the wsdl4j
> method
> > > getBindingOperation in com.ibm.wsdl.BindingImpl to return null when
wsif
> > > calls it with the operation, input, and output names from the
portType.
> > >
> > > Reading the wsdl spec it not clear to me if it is valid wsdl to leave
> out
> > > the names on the binding when they're specified in the portType.
> > >
> > > If it is valid is this a wsdl4j bug or should wsif work around it?
> > >
> > > We could fix it in wsif by doing something like (thanks Owen) trying
to
> > > find the bindingOperation using the input/output names given, then if
no
> > > match is found try using null for the input/output names, and then if
> > still
> > > no match is then found check to see if the binding input/output names
> for
> > > the matched operation are null. If they are then use that
> > bindingOperation.
> > > If not then return null since it is not a "match".
> > >
> > > What does anyone think?
> > >
> > > ...ant
> > >
> > > Anthony Elder
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Web Services Development
> > > IBM UK Laboratories, Hursley Park
> > > (+44) 01962 818320, x248320, MP208.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
