See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 06 June 2006
<scribe> Scribe: pauld
pauld: trying to line up a F2F last week in July/First week in August depending upon a room
george: spoke to Mark, both came
to the conclusion that looking for what isn't allowed is far
easier than recognising allowed patterns
... the catch-all doesn't seem to work for us
jonc: highlighting what NOT to use isn't politically correct
george: yes, I realise
pauld: worried how this impacts how we work
george: is it sufficient to only report patterns in use, and leave as an exercise for the reader to work out what else is in there? (doesn't seem likely, though easy to implement)
pauld: wondering if it's a problem of how we're working or our proposed use of schematron that's the issue here?
<Ajith> bit noisy !
<pauld> BT are on a polycon in The City with roadworks going on outside.
pauld: seems like we need to consider finer grained patterns and/or another XPath based tool to make progress
pauld: I'm unhappy at this point to change the way we work given it looks promising from a spec-layering POV.
pauld: George sent me some schematron this morning which looked very promising.
<scribe> ACTION: pdowney to solicit help based upon George's work on Schematron [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-databinding-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-44 - Solicit help based upon George\'s work on Schematron [on Paul Downey - due 2006-06-13].
- seems to me that finer grained patterns will help us here - patterns such as 'Collection' are too big at the moment, and I suspect this is likely to be at the root of our difficulties.
pauld: thanks George for his work on this!
pauld: if Yves was here I'd ask about adding XPath rules for our design considerations in our xmlspec
pauld: I worked with Otu and
generated WSDL and example SOAP 1.1/1.2 documents
pauld: each WSDL contains an echoX operation to echo an element of type X, and in most Java toolkits the generated server function is:
X echoX(X p) {
return p;
}
and .NET C# is just:
void echoX(ref X p) {
return;
}
jonc: been using Axis2 thanks to the databinding framework to generate Java code, but had a few niggles deploying our services using Tungston, would appreciate some WSO2 assistance
ajith: Jon sent me some WSDL, I'll take a look
pauld: looks promising, I'll keep ISSUE-2 open as a placeholder for now
jonc: we generated some WSDL using Yves script hacked by Pauld using a union pattern
jonc: several tools bailed, notably Axis2 when we used the ADB binding framework
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsd-databinding/2006Jun/0005.html
pauld: certainly doesn't look
like a basic pattern to me, but is it an advanced pattern?
... saw two different patterns for union from jon
<scribe> ACTION: jcalladi to submit pattern for ISSUE-9 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-databinding-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-45 - Submit pattern for ISSUE-9 [on Jonathan Calladine - due 2006-06-13].
<scribe> ACTION: jcalladi to create issue for alternative pattern for union [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-databinding-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-46 - Create issue for alternative pattern for union [on Jonathan Calladine - due 2006-06-13].
pauld: went to the basic profile
WG with George's issue
... feel bad at the result, but my clarification does at least document the status quo
which has to be better than being ambiguous, no?
george: does lead us to feel that databinding tools aren't ideal for our customers
pauld: all databinding tools suck!
george: I guess the reality is that we going to have to revisit our namespace policy
pauld: to be fair it's really less of a databinding issue and more of a WSDL types section issue, which is the thrust of my clarification
pauld: So what should I do with this issue now?
george: we can progress it in the WS-I ourselves
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-34 with no action
pauld: fwiw I'm at the next WS-I Plenary and intend to present on behalf of the WG at the opening session
pauld: I'm considering reopening this issue in the light of how we are now working
pauld: George, it was your issue, how do you feel about going back and reopening it?
george: happy to reopen it
pauld: will reopen ISSUE-33 and
put it on the Agenda for the next WG meeting
... practical experience means it doesn't belong in basic patterns,
so should it be moved to advanced?
george: ditching Choice from Basic patterns isn't going to look good!
pauld: isn't going to look good for whom? :-)
pauld: OK, time's up - thanks for your work this week, I think we've made some progress