WSDL Structure and port types

Hello,


I'm trying to reuse WSDL files for WSRF services (that
weren't using 
Apache WSRF).
I'm only interested in the operations regarding the
resource properties 
for the moment. I have several of these services, so I would
like to 
avoid duplicating the same thing, in particular the port
types for the 
WS-ResourceProperties operations.

At the moment, I've written a common WSRF.wsdl file that
contains a port 
type of this form:

<wsdl:portType name="WSRFOperations">
   <wsdl:operation
name="GetResourceProperty">
      <wsdl:input
message="wsrp:GetResourcePropertyRequest" 
name="GetResourcePropertyRequest"/>
      <wsdl:output
message="wsrp:GetResourcePropertyResponse" 
name="GetResourcePropertyResponse"/>
      <wsdl:fault
message="wsrp:ResourceUnknownFault" 
name="ResourceUnknownFault"/>
      <wsdl:fault
message="wsrp:InvalidResourcePropertyQNameFault"

name="InvalidResourcePropertyQNameFault"/>
   </wsdl:operation>

   <wsdl:operation
name="GetMultipleResourceProperties">
      <!-- ... -->
   </wsdl:operation>

   <!-- + other operations of WS-ResourceProperties ...
-->

</wsdl:porttype>


In short, this is the same as 
<http:/
/docs.oasis-open.org/wsrf/rpw-2.wsdl>, except that
I've merged 
all the port types for all the operations into a single one.


Then, each resource WSDL uses:

   <import location="WSRF.wsdl" 
namespace="http://www.ibm.com/xmlns/stdwip/web-services/W
S-ResourceProperties"/>

   <service name="MyResource">
     <port
binding="tns:MyResourceSpecificSoapBinding" 
name="MyResourcePort">
        <soap:address location="http://localhost/.../"
;/>
     </port>
     <port
binding="wsrf:WSRFOperationsSoapBinding" 
name="MyResourceWSRFPort">
        <soap:address location="http://localhost/.../"
;/>
     </port>
   </service>

(I'm using two ports because one is for the WSRF properties
and the 
other one is for operations specific to that resource.)



Unfortunately, WSDL2Java (in WSRF 1.0) generates two sets of
classes, 
one for each port, whereas I would really like just one set
of classes 
(one per service and not per port).

Is my way of writing the WSDL file incorrect or discouraged?
I would 
assume not, since if I took 
<http:/
/docs.oasis-open.org/wsrf/rpw-2.wsdl>, I would end up
with even 
more sets of classes.

Is there any way to avoid copying and pasting all the 
WS-ResourceProperties entries into the WSDL file (to avoid
what's done 
in the Filesystem example)?

Perhaps one way around this would be to use a single back
end object for 
several instances of 'Resource' corresponding in fact to a
single 
resource, therefore the factory would have to create several
resources 
for a single back-end resource. This seems long and a bit
hard to 
maintain and synchronise.



Regards,

Bruno.

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsrf-user-unsubscribews.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: wsrf-user-helpws.apache.org

Bruno,

WSDL 1.0 doesn't include inheritance..That is the issue. 
That is why
you copy and paste what you want into your wsdl....
I think that's answering part of your question...

We generate based on port because the port references the
binding which
references the portType which contains the operations....The
ports seem
like the obvious place to separate the endpoints...That
being said,
there is no reason you couldn't alter the generated
interface and code
to contain all the operations and map the resource to a
single
type....You can do this to meet your needs.  The thing to
watch out for
is common operations in portTypes...If you had the same
operation
defined in two portTypes and you collapse this to one, does
it still
make sense for you?

Bottom line is you can do it.  I do not, however think we
should
generate one class just for the service as opposed to
generating on the
ports...

-S

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Harbulot [mailto:Bruno.Harbulotmanchester.ac.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 9:38 AM
To: wsrf-userws.apache.org
Subject: WSDL Structure and port types

Hello,


I'm trying to reuse WSDL files for WSRF services (that
weren't using
Apache WSRF).
I'm only interested in the operations regarding the
resource properties
for the moment. I have several of these services, so I would
like to
avoid duplicating the same thing, in particular the port
types for the
WS-ResourceProperties operations.

At the moment, I've written a common WSRF.wsdl file that
contains a port
type of this form:

<wsdl:portType name="WSRFOperations">
   <wsdl:operation
name="GetResourceProperty">
      <wsdl:input
message="wsrp:GetResourcePropertyRequest" 
name="GetResourcePropertyRequest"/>
      <wsdl:output
message="wsrp:GetResourcePropertyResponse" 
name="GetResourcePropertyResponse"/>
      <wsdl:fault
message="wsrp:ResourceUnknownFault" 
name="ResourceUnknownFault"/>
      <wsdl:fault
message="wsrp:InvalidResourcePropertyQNameFault"

name="InvalidResourcePropertyQNameFault"/>
   </wsdl:operation>

   <wsdl:operation
name="GetMultipleResourceProperties">
      <!-- ... -->
   </wsdl:operation>

   <!-- + other operations of WS-ResourceProperties ...
-->

</wsdl:porttype>


In short, this is the same as
<http:/
/docs.oasis-open.org/wsrf/rpw-2.wsdl>, except that
I've merged
all the port types for all the operations into a single one.


Then, each resource WSDL uses:

   <import location="WSRF.wsdl" 
namespace="http://www.ibm.com/xmlns/stdwip/web-services/WS-Res
ourcePrope
rties"/>

   <service name="MyResource">
     <port
binding="tns:MyResourceSpecificSoapBinding" 
name="MyResourcePort">
        <soap:address location="http://localhost/.../"
;/>
     </port>
     <port
binding="wsrf:WSRFOperationsSoapBinding" 
name="MyResourceWSRFPort">
        <soap:address location="http://localhost/.../"
;/>
     </port>
   </service>

(I'm using two ports because one is for the WSRF properties
and the
other one is for operations specific to that resource.)



Unfortunately, WSDL2Java (in WSRF 1.0) generates two sets of
classes, 
one for each port, whereas I would really like just one set
of classes 
(one per service and not per port).

Is my way of writing the WSDL file incorrect or discouraged?
I would 
assume not, since if I took 
<http:/
/docs.oasis-open.org/wsrf/rpw-2.wsdl>, I would end up
with even 
more sets of classes.

Is there any way to avoid copying and pasting all the 
WS-ResourceProperties entries into the WSDL file (to avoid
what's done 
in the Filesystem example)?

Perhaps one way around this would be to use a single back
end object for

several instances of 'Resource' corresponding in fact to a
single 
resource, therefore the factory would have to create several
resources 
for a single back-end resource. This seems long and a bit
hard to 
maintain and synchronise.



Regards,

Bruno.

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsrf-user-unsubscribews.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: wsrf-user-helpws.apache.org


------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsrf-user-unsubscribews.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: wsrf-user-helpws.apache.org

Campana Jr., Salvatore J wrote:
> Bruno,
> 
> WSDL 1.0 doesn't include inheritance..That is the
issue.  That is why
> you copy and paste what you want into your wsdl....
> I think that's answering part of your question...

Indeed it does. I was using two ports in a single service to
circumvent 
this limitation.


> We generate based on port because the port references
the binding which
> references the portType which contains the
operations....The ports seem
> like the obvious place to separate the endpoints...That
being said,
> there is no reason you couldn't alter the generated
interface and code
> to contain all the operations and map the resource to a
single
> type....You can do this to meet your needs.  The thing
to watch out for
> is common operations in portTypes...If you had the same
operation
> defined in two portTypes and you collapse this to one,
does it still
> make sense for you?
> 
> Bottom line is you can do it.  I do not, however think
we should
> generate one class just for the service as opposed to
generating on the
> ports...

If I can make an analogy between WS and Java (I'm aware
I'm entering a 
dangerous ground), I would consider the portTypes to be
equivalent to 
interfaces (which seems to make sense with respect to the
WSDL 2.0 
recommendations) and services/bindings to be equivalent to
classes (and 
this is indeed a short cut).
That's obviously arguable and I can see where it would pose
some 
problems, in particular if there were several bindings for a
single 
instance of the "class" behind. In this case,
the workaround I've used 
to have something similar to inheritance in WSDL wouldn't
work.
I think collapsing two port types wouldn't cause more
problems that 
implementing in the same class two Java interfaces
containing two 
methods of the same name would (it's mostly a input/output
type problem, 
which may itself depend on the limitations of the language
used to 
implement the service).
Yet, if we assume everybody uses a SOAP over HTTP binding,
it seems 
fine, and it would make sense to generate interfaces for the
portTypes 
and classes for the services.
I must admit it really depends on the interpretation made by
the tooling 
behind the WSDL specification. I'm not quite sure if WSDL
2.0 is so much 
better in that respect (I haven't really explored it, and
it's a bit 
late to make objections to the working group anyway).


This being said, there might be a simpler way out of this in
the context 
of WSRF (well, simpler for the user at least): having a
transformation 
that generates the WSDL for a WSRF service from a WSDL that
only 
contains the custom operations. This could be another ant
task with 
parameters to select which operations to include.



Bruno.


------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsrf-user-unsubscribews.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: wsrf-user-helpws.apache.org

I agree with your observations...

As for the generation of a wsdl which contains all the spec
operations...from my perspective its all relative...We
include a
template wsdl which contains all the operations you can use
as a
starting point, else copy and paste...If we spent the time
to make the
utility you speak of, then people would complain that they
had to delete
the operations they don't want....I'm sure you know how it
is...

But...

We always welcome contributuions...so get on it!!

Thanks Bruno!

-Sal 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Harbulot [mailto:Bruno.Harbulotmanchester.ac.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 1:03 PM
To: wsrf-userws.apache.org
Subject: Re: WSDL Structure and port types



Campana Jr., Salvatore J wrote:
> Bruno,
> 
> WSDL 1.0 doesn't include inheritance..That is the
issue.  That is why 
> you copy and paste what you want into your wsdl....
> I think that's answering part of your question...

Indeed it does. I was using two ports in a single service to
circumvent
this limitation.


> We generate based on port because the port references
the binding
which
> references the portType which contains the
operations....The ports
seem
> like the obvious place to separate the endpoints...That
being said,
> there is no reason you couldn't alter the generated
interface and code
> to contain all the operations and map the resource to a
single
> type....You can do this to meet your needs.  The thing
to watch out
for
> is common operations in portTypes...If you had the same
operation
> defined in two portTypes and you collapse this to one,
does it still
> make sense for you?
> 
> Bottom line is you can do it.  I do not, however think
we should
> generate one class just for the service as opposed to
generating on
the
> ports...

If I can make an analogy between WS and Java (I'm aware
I'm entering a 
dangerous ground), I would consider the portTypes to be
equivalent to 
interfaces (which seems to make sense with respect to the
WSDL 2.0 
recommendations) and services/bindings to be equivalent to
classes (and 
this is indeed a short cut).
That's obviously arguable and I can see where it would pose
some 
problems, in particular if there were several bindings for a
single 
instance of the "class" behind. In this case,
the workaround I've used 
to have something similar to inheritance in WSDL wouldn't
work.
I think collapsing two port types wouldn't cause more
problems that 
implementing in the same class two Java interfaces
containing two 
methods of the same name would (it's mostly a input/output
type problem,

which may itself depend on the limitations of the language
used to 
implement the service).
Yet, if we assume everybody uses a SOAP over HTTP binding,
it seems 
fine, and it would make sense to generate interfaces for the
portTypes 
and classes for the services.
I must admit it really depends on the interpretation made by
the tooling

behind the WSDL specification. I'm not quite sure if WSDL
2.0 is so much

better in that respect (I haven't really explored it, and
it's a bit 
late to make objections to the working group anyway).


This being said, there might be a simpler way out of this in
the context

of WSRF (well, simpler for the user at least): having a
transformation 
that generates the WSDL for a WSRF service from a WSDL that
only 
contains the custom operations. This could be another ant
task with 
parameters to select which operations to include.



Bruno.


------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsrf-user-unsubscribews.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: wsrf-user-helpws.apache.org


------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsrf-user-unsubscribews.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: wsrf-user-helpws.apache.org