Sounds good, particularly if the code gets comments suggesting the
appropriate change when WSDL4J supports the 2.4.5 naming algorithm.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Elder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:54 AM
Subject: Re: [wsif] Bug 13038 - WSIF's dynamic port/operation creation
confusion about message names
>
> I'm inclined to go with the lenient code I suggested below which allows
the
> binding input/output names to not match if there's only one binding
> operation matching the portType operation name.
>
> The WSDL spec seems a bit ambiguous on whether the binding operation
> input/output names must match, but going by where the spec is clear, then
> it should be legal to have a portType without input/output names, and a
> binding specifying input/output names that match the default names
> described in section 2.4.5. But, WSDL4J doesn't yet implement these
> defaults, so if WSIF enforced the rule that if the binding operation
> input/output does have names then they must match the portType operation
> input/output names, then the WSDL would be rejected.
>
> To fix that WSIF would have to implement the default names described in
> 2.4.5 - check the String returned from the WSDL4J Input/Output getName()
> method for null or "", find the operation style, and implement the
> algorithm in 2.4.5. I don't think WSIF should be doing this.
>
> It seems better for now to let some rare cases of slightly invalid WSDL
> through as valid, than to have strictly correct WSDL be rejected.
>
> ...ant
>
> Anthony Elder
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Web Services Development
> IBM UK Laboratories, Hursley Park
> (+44) 01962 818320, x248320, MP208.
>
>
> "Jeff Greif" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 01/10/2002 18:19:22
>
> 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 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
