[OGSA-BES-WG] BES schema/wsdl

Peter G. Lane lane at mcs.anl.gov
Thu Oct 26 10:13:47 CDT 2006

Vivian Li wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Peter G. Lane [mailto:lane at mcs.anl.gov]
>> Sent: 26 October 2006 15:20
>> To: Vivian Li
>> Cc: ogsa-bes-wg at ogf.org
>> Subject: Re: BES schema/wsdl
>> Vivian Li wrote:
>>> Its only a matter of convention, and, it surly make life easier when
>>> talking about debug the tooling, (of course you can say this is out
> of
>>> the scope for now), but for the long run, it is a better practice,
> and
>>> the modification - only a cut/paste job.
>> I don't see how it makes debugging tooling easier. I also haven't seen
> a
>> compelling argument to be
>> able to say it is inherently a better practice. But as I said, if it's
> a
>> trend that the working
>> group wants to follow, fine. Regardless, until I see a convincing
> argument
>> to the contrary, I'm
>> sticking with my belief that it's better from an organizational point
> of
>> view (think object
>> oriented) to encapsulate in the WSDL document the set of schema types
> and
>> elements that have no
>> relevance outside of that WSDL.
> Exactly - all the data types, including WSDL message types, (complexType
> & elements) that potentially will be generated as objects, should all go
> to the schema, WSDL document is only for messages and portTypes. I think
> that is a better organization.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not advocating moving all the schema entities into the .xsd file. 
I'm still advocating keeping those schema entities that are only relevant to the WSDL (i.e. message 
types and elements) inside the WSDL document. No other WSDL or schema needs to import those 
entities. The only reason I think we need a separate .xsd file is because there are schema entities 
that are shared between WSDL documents (i.e. Activity port type). Also, since the WSDL has a schema 
section, you can't say that the WSDL is only for port types and messages. That's just a personal 
preference. Why would the WSDL spec creators put it in there if not to allow you to put schema 
entities in the WSDL document?


> Its your call.
>> Peter
>>> Vivian
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Peter G. Lane [mailto:lane at mcs.anl.gov]
>>>> Sent: 24 October 2006 16:55
>>>> To: Vivian Li
>>>> Cc: ogsa-bes-wg at ogf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: BES schema/wsdl
>>>> I argued against this, actually, because the types that are in the
>>> WSDL
>>>> don't have any applicability
>>>> outside of the WSDL. That said, if the rest of the group thinks
> that
>>>> convention is enough to
>>>> overlook that, I'm not going to complain. We're trying to avoid
> large
>>>> changes like this so we can
>>>> release the spec for public review, so my vote would still be to
> leave
>>> it
>>>> alone regardless.
>>>> Peter
>>>> Vivian Li wrote:
>>>>> Another suggestion while browsing the BES schema/wsdl, it might be
>>>>> easier to maintain if the data types in the schema and the wsdl
> are
>>>>> separated completely, e.g. move the "Message Types" in the schema
>>>>> section from the wsdl to the schema file, it has been kind of
>>> convention
>>>>> in all the other WGs.
>>>>> Vivian

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3804 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-bes-wg/attachments/20061026/b98069e1/attachment.bin 

More information about the ogsa-bes-wg mailing list