Hi Lawrence,

Is there any means you can create a small WSDL validator out of this and
donate to Axis2 so that we can distribute with Axis2 releases ?

-- Chinthaka

Lawrence Mandel wrote:
> 
> The all in one zips contain the Eclipse platform, the WTP prereqs and
> WTP. (They're meant for users that want to easily install WTP.) The SDK
> build includes source along with the runtime plug-ins. The WSDL
> validator does not depend on the Eclipse platform or any other Eclipse
> projects. The dependencies for the validator are Xerces and WSDL4J. The
> smallest download currently available that contains the necessary
> plug-ins is the wtp-wst zip (as in wtp-wst-R-1.0.2-200604280245.zip
> <http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/download.php?file=/webtools/downloads/drops/R-1.0.2-200604280245/wtp-wst-R-1.0.2-200604280245.zip>)
> weighing in at roughly 20 megs. This zip contains the WSDL validator,
> Xerces and WSDL4J.
> 
> Lawrence
> 
> 
> 
> *"Jeremy Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>*
> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 05/19/2006 03:26 PM
> Please respond to
> [email protected]
> 
> 
>       
> To
>       [email protected]
> cc
>       
> Subject
>       Re: Evolving Woden and the 1.1 to 2.0 converter
> 
> 
>       
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent. Of course I should have know that. But WOW the
> wtp-all-in-one-sdk zip is 182Mb. Is there a smaller download? Just
> trying to think how I can incorporate it into the Woden test suite.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> On 5/19/06, *Lawrence Mandel* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> 
>>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] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>*>*
> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 05/18/2006 06:43 PM
> Please respond to_
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[email protected]>
> 
>       
> To
>       [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[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]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 
> 


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to