Hi all,

Systinet makes implementations and it is represented in both the XMLP
and WS-Description working groups. We expect to move to WSDL 1.2 when
it's ready, in the meantime supporting the current, ad-hoc WSDL 1.1
binding for SOAP 1.2.

Personally, I have to react to the persisting rumour that WSDL 1.2 is
not going to support SOAP 1.2 Encoding. Here's the situation:

Fact: WSDL 1.2 has dropped the 'use' attribute keeping the 'literal'
behavior.

Charter excerpt: "It is expected that developers will want to use
different mechanisms for describing data types and structures, depending
on the purpose of the Web service. The Working Group should allow
different mechanisms, and must define one based on XML Schema. The
Working Group will also take into account the encoding work going on in
the XML Protocol Working Group, and will make sure that SOAP Version
1.2's extensibility mechanism can be expressed."

I have been saying for a long time that instead of tweaking XML Schema
to describe data in SOAP Data Model (that's what the 'encoded' use did)
we should have a SOAP Data Model Schema language. As SOAP Data Model is
based on the common programming languages' constructs, the schema
language could be as simple a C's struct and array definitions, reusing
XML Schema simple types.

Whenever I say this, 1) people shout "not yet another schema language!"
and 2) are worried what happens if WSDL 1.2 (or other W3C spec) doesn't
specify such a language for SOAP 1.2 Data Model. My responses:

1) Use appropriate tools for appropriate tasks. XML Schema is very
usable for a class of data modeling applications based on the XML Schema
data model, tree of groups, sequences, choices etc. It is not suitable
for graph models like SOAP 1.2 Data Model *and it wasn't meant to be*.

2) When the WS-D WG gets to that, I'm going to propose a simple SOAP
Data Model Schema language and I'll fight hard that it at least be an
appendix. You can support me. 8-)

Best regards,

Jacek Kopecky

Senior Architect
Systinet Corporation
http://www.systinet.com/





On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 06:28, Simon Fell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We can use WSDL but it is not required, currently the plan is to
> support SOAP 1.2 without any explicit WSDL support.
>
> There have been a number of significant changes in SOAP 1.2 since that
> prototype binding was put together, particular around arrays, RPC and
> faults, I'm not sure that it's still entirely suitable.
>
> I'd prefer to wait for WSDL 1.2 however if that is a significant
> amount of time away ( e.g. > 6 months ), I would be open to supporting
> an interim solution based on WSDL 1.1 that this community reaches
> consensus on.
>
> <devils-advocate>If we have WSDL 1.1 binding for SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2
> that include soap encoding, and numerous people have implemented
> support for it, why would we move to WDSL 1.2 ? (especially given the
> plan to drop soap encoding support from WSDL 1.2)</devils-advocate>
>
> Cheers
> Simon
> www.pocketsoap.com
>
> On Mon, 19 May 2003 21:07:56 -0400, in ws you wrote:
>
> >
> >Hi y'all:
> >
> >With my WS-Description hat on, I've taken the action of asking this group of
esteemed SOAP developers to comment on the following issue. Please take a
moment to read and respond if you can, especially if you were involved in the
SOAP 1.2 testing over the last few months.
> >
> >Here's the context. We're trying to figure out how to deal with the fact
that the WSDL 1.2 spec is not yet fully fleshed out enough to use without
worrying unduly about major changes. Since this is the case, WSDL 1.1 seems
like the description technology to use for now - but WSDL 1.1 does not yet have
a "blessed" SOAP 1.2 binding, and SOAP 1.2 is on the way out the door of the W3C
process. So....
> >
> >How do you plan to move your products to SOAP 1.2 in the time period between
the SOAP rec and when WSDL 1.2 stabilizes? Is WSDL essential to use your SOAP
product?
> >
> >Does the current prototype SOAP-1.2 binding [1] for WSDL 1.1 meet your needs
for the next few months? Are there places where it seems underspecified or
inadequate? Would you support / work on getting this binding sufficiently into
shape that it could be published either by SOAPBuilders directly, as a W3C note,
or perhaps within the realm of another standards organization such as WS-I or
OASIS?
> >
> >Is it critical to you to have a "standard" or "blessed" WSDL binding for SOAP
1.2? Or will your product attempt to use SOAP 1.1 bindings with some
out-of-band means to enable SOAP 1.2 (an API flag, the VersionMismatch fault,
etc)?
> >
> >We'd very much appreciate your comments/opinions!
> >
> >Thank you,
> >--Glen
> >
> >[1] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/files/soap12WSDL.htm
> >
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
> >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
> >
> >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>