>We don't have a WSDL 1.1 validator

Problem solved. The Eclipse Web Tools Platform (WTP) project [1] includes an open source WSDL validator, which I wrote and maintain. The validator can be run programmatically outside of Eclipse. There are also Ant and command line tasks to run WSDL validation.

[1] http://www.eclipse.org/webtools

Lawrence Mandel



"Jeremy Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

05/18/2006 06:43 PM

Please respond to
[email protected]

To
[email protected]
cc
Subject
Evolving Woden and the 1.1 to 2.0 converter





I'm considering this as an approach to further Woden testing. The 1.1
to 2.0 converter could be used to generate WSDL 2.0 documents from a
collection of WSDL 1.1 documents. Those documents would then be run
through the Woden parser and validator. Each parse/validation would
yeild a +ve or -ve result.

-ve results could be produced by either Woden spotting a problem in
the conversion of the document or Woden not parsing or validating the
resulting WSDL 2.0 document correctly. In the former case we would
correct the converter, in the latter case we'd correct Woden.

+ve results could be produced by the converter producing a valid WSDL
2.0 document and Woden parsing and validating it correctly. Great! A
+ve result could also be produced by the converter producing an
incorrect document AND Woden not spotting the error. These issues will
be more difficult to tease out, but since the converter was written
independently to Woden I suspect these will be uncommon.

As we fix bugs in the validator (found by Woden) and fix bugs in Woden
(found by the converter) both Woden and the validator will evolve to
be more complete. At least that is my hope.

What do you think?

I can see one potential problem right away. We don't have a WSDL 1.1
validator (WSDL4J doesn't do semantic validation) so we don't know
whether the WSDL 1.1 document being passed to the converter is valid.
However, I suspect these kind of documents would either fail to be
converted or Woden would fail to validate them. If not then we have a
false +ve.

I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks,
Jeremy

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Reply via email to