scalaxb does not handle out of order wsdl files #87

Closed
dkhenry opened this Issue Sep 20, 2011 · 4 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@dkhenry

dkhenry commented Sep 20, 2011

The wsdl specification lists files as having the following deceleration order

       <sequence>
          <element ref="wsdl:import" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
          <element ref="wsdl:types" minOccurs="0"/>
          <element ref="wsdl:message" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
          <element ref="wsdl:portType" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
          <element ref="wsdl:binding" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
          <element ref="wsdl:service" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
          <any namespace="##other" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
             <annotation>
                <documentation>to support extensibility elements </documentation>
             </annotation>
          </any>
       </sequence>

wsdl files that deviate from this ordering are not correctly parsed by scalaxb

@eed3si9n

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@eed3si9n

eed3si9n Sep 22, 2011

Owner

Here's an interesting W3C Issue 43 called Does order matter for the child elements of
"definitions"?
. One of the authors proposed to indicate

the order of child elements of <definitions> is immaterial

And was the case was resolved. This seems to be reflected in WSDL 1.2, but 1.1 still is based on strict order. We are still using WSDL 1.1, but I guess some people are writing non-valid WSDL.

I wonder if this is a common enough phenomenon to make it a scalaxb standard feature to have an option of ignoring strict ordering for top levels; or just one-time occurrence.

Owner

eed3si9n commented Sep 22, 2011

Here's an interesting W3C Issue 43 called Does order matter for the child elements of
"definitions"?
. One of the authors proposed to indicate

the order of child elements of <definitions> is immaterial

And was the case was resolved. This seems to be reflected in WSDL 1.2, but 1.1 still is based on strict order. We are still using WSDL 1.1, but I guess some people are writing non-valid WSDL.

I wonder if this is a common enough phenomenon to make it a scalaxb standard feature to have an option of ignoring strict ordering for top levels; or just one-time occurrence.

@dkhenry

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dkhenry

dkhenry Sep 22, 2011

I know there are a few companies that have poorly formed wsdl's. When I was
working with SUDS ( python SOAP library ) they had a hook to allow you to
arbitrarily fix broken wsdl's

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:50 AM, eugene yokota <
reply@reply.github.com>wrote:

Here's an interesting W3C Issue 43 called Does order matter for the child
elements of
"definitions"?
. One of the authors proposed to indicate

the order of child elements of <definitions> is immaterial

And was the case was resolved. This seems to be reflected in WSDL 1.2, but
1.1 still is based on strict order. We are still using WSDL 1.1, but I guess
some people are writing non-valid WSDL.

I wonder if this is a common enough phenomenon to make it a scalaxb
standard feature to have an option of ignoring strict ordering for top
levels; or just one-time occurrence.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#87 (comment)

S.D.G.

dkhenry commented Sep 22, 2011

I know there are a few companies that have poorly formed wsdl's. When I was
working with SUDS ( python SOAP library ) they had a hook to allow you to
arbitrarily fix broken wsdl's

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:50 AM, eugene yokota <
reply@reply.github.com>wrote:

Here's an interesting W3C Issue 43 called Does order matter for the child
elements of
"definitions"?
. One of the authors proposed to indicate

the order of child elements of <definitions> is immaterial

And was the case was resolved. This seems to be reflected in WSDL 1.2, but
1.1 still is based on strict order. We are still using WSDL 1.1, but I guess
some people are writing non-valid WSDL.

I wonder if this is a common enough phenomenon to make it a scalaxb
standard feature to have an option of ignoring strict ordering for top
levels; or just one-time occurrence.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#87 (comment)

S.D.G.

@ghost ghost assigned eed3si9n Oct 5, 2011

@eed3si9n

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@eed3si9n

eed3si9n Jan 8, 2012

Owner

Grégoire Neuville also reported an issue based on out-of-order wsdl in this thread.

Owner

eed3si9n commented Jan 8, 2012

Grégoire Neuville also reported an issue based on out-of-order wsdl in this thread.

@eed3si9n

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@eed3si9n

eed3si9n Jan 10, 2012

Owner

@hedefalk also reported #123.

Owner

eed3si9n commented Jan 10, 2012

@hedefalk also reported #123.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment