Issue 7743: Section 1.2.8.2 (wsdlcorba-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Severity: Summary: Section 1.2.8.2 In the example(Page 1-22, top), "readonly" attribute is mapped as follows: <operation name="_get_longAttr" > <output message="tns:MyAttrs._get_longAttrResponse"/> <fault message=”tns:CORBA.SystemException”/> </operation> But in most of the SOAP specification implementations(Axis, .NET 1.1 etc.), the format like this means the operation is a 'notify' operation. Proposed solution: Maybe we should map as follows: <message name=”longAttrRequest”> </message> <operation name=”_get_longAttr”> <input message=”tns:longAttrRequest” /> <output message=”tns:MyAttrs._get_longAttrResponse”/> <fault message=“tns:CORBA.SystemException”> </operation> Resolution: Close as Duplicate of Issue 6996 Revised Text: Actions taken: September 13, 2004: received issue December 3, 2004: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== te: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 01:42:56 +0800 (CST) From: =?gb2312?q?bin=20zhou?= Subject: new issues reporting - number 2 To: issues@omg.org Hi,there We are OMG Uni. member (Member ID: 45687). We have found a issue/bug for the 'CORBA to WSDL/SOAP Interworking Specification' (03-11-02). Posted below. ---------------------------------------------------------- Name: Bin Zhou Company: National Lab. on Distributed Processing mailFrom: http://cn.f153.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=hncszhoubin@yahoo.com.cn Specification: CORBA to WSDL/SOAP Interworking Specification Section 1.2.8.2 In the example(Page 1-22, top), "readonly" attribute is mapped as follows: But in most of the SOAP specification implementations(Axis, .NET 1.1 etc.), the format like this means the operation is a 'notify' operation. Proposed solution: Maybe we should map as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------- best regards, Bin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? 150万曲MP3疯狂搜，带您闯入音乐殿堂美女明星应有尽有，搜遍美图、艳图和酷图 Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 19:29:28 -0400 From: Tom Rutt Reply-To: tom@coastin.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: wsdlcorba-rtf@omg.org, "Vinoski, Stephen" , "Moore, Keith" Subject: Discussion on ISSUE 7743 regarding get accessor input message The issue 7743 is attached: I agree that a message with no parts is better for a get accessor for an attribute in an IDL interface. However this would be a significant change. Do the rest of your agree to such a change? In addition, we should probably clarify that operations should always have input and output messages, even if they have no parts defined (eg, an operation with no in or in/out parameters should still have an input message with no parts). What do you all think about this. Tom Rutt Issue 7743: Section 1.2.8.2 (wsdlcorba-rtf) Summary: Section 1.2.8.2 In the example(Page 1-22, top), "readonly" attribute is mapped as follows: But in most of the SOAP specification implementations(Axis, .NET 1.1 etc.), the format like this means the operation is a 'notify' operation. Proposed solution: Maybe we should map as follows: -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:58:33 -0400 From: Tom Rutt Reply-To: tom@coastin.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: tom@coastin.com CC: wsdlcorba-rtf@omg.org, "Vinoski, Stephen" , "Moore, Keith" , iwasa , Masahiko Narita Subject: Re: Discussion on ISSUE 7743 regarding get accessor input message WSDL section 2.4 states the following: " Although the base WSDL structure supports bindings for these four transmission primitives, WSDL only defines bindings for the One-way and Request-response primitives. It is expected that specifications that define the protocols for Solicit-response or Notification would also include WSDL binding extensions that allow use of these primitives. " The basic profile from WS-I states the following: " 4.5.2 Allowed Operations Solicit-Response and Notification operations are not well defined by WSDL 1.1; furthermore, WSDL 1.1 does not define bindings for them. R2303 A DESCRIPTION MUST NOT use Solicit-Response and Notification type operations in a wsdl:portType definition. " Based on this, we really should change the mapping for the get accessor for attributes to use an empty request message (i.e., no parts) rather than NO Request message. An operation with no input message is a notification type operation, which does not have a standard wsdl binding defined. Tom Rutt Tom Rutt wrote: The issue 7743 is attached: I agree that a message with no parts is better for a get accessor for an attribute in an IDL interface. However this would be a significant change. Do the rest of your agree to such a change? In addition, we should probably clarify that operations should always have input and output messages, even if they have no parts defined (eg, an operation with no in or in/out parameters should still have an input message with no parts). What do you all think about this. Tom Rutt Issue 7743: Section 1.2.8.2 (wsdlcorba-rtf) Summary: Section 1.2.8.2 In the example(Page 1-22, top), "readonly" attribute is mapped as follows: But in most of the SOAP specification implementations(Axis, .NET 1.1 etc.), the format like this means the operation is a 'notify' operation. Proposed solution: Maybe we should map as follows: -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 1G就是1000兆，雅虎电邮自助扩容！