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.
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
