Forum OpenACS Q&A: Re: Which version of xotcl-soap (xosoap) should I use?

Justis,

Thanks for providing the wsdl descriptions to Tom and me. Though I am puzzled why you don't have any public url pointing to them since they are auto-generated by Axis?!

Anyway, as for the compilation issues: I fear that you experience an issue specific to x86_64 which is related to a documented bug in binutils. See http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/tcl-core/3573780 and make sure that you have a sufficiently recent binutils distribution. However, I do not have access to a comparable build environment so I can not get my hands dirty ...

Hope this gives you a pointer ...

Justis,

Right now, I just need to keep us moving forward to a decision on how best to begin consuming web services from within our existing OpenACS apps.

I know. You already received a rough primer from Tom on approaching your scenarios, mine on xosoap will follow tomorrow (Dec 30, 2007, GMT+1). I am quite busy these days, so am just now arriving at this point on my todo list.
I will post my suggestions to this thread ...

cheers
//s

Justis,

I hope you didn't take my comment as suggesting you should move faster.

No, no ... I didn't, I just wanted to express my awareness of your shortage in time ...

Finally, I reviewed the interface descriptions you provided to me by email (and which Tom is kindly hosting). A single one (jasperserver, http://junom.com/document/openacs/business-wsdl/jasperserver-repository.wsdl.xml) adopts the RPC/Encoded style, the other three, however, realise the document/literal style.

As for the RPC/Encoded style, realising a consumer is straight forward. Please, find and review a working example at http://svn.thinkersfoot.net/xosoap/trunk/www/demo/demo-ivc-jasperserver-consumer.tcl.
The above proxy was tested against an auto-generated mock service based on the wsdl provided.

As for the document/literal ones, the main problem is that document/literal support for the CONSUMER/CLIENT part has not been accomplished. This is, on the one hand, due to the fact that this feature has been ranked low in priority (at least so far), on the other hand, I am only now investigating a major rewrite towards a more general xml data binding infrastructure as discussed in https://openacs.org/forums/message-view?message_id=1392828. The latter is key to a sound support of document/literal style. Though I could think of some rough work-arounds for realising a simplistic document/literal service (jdbc one), the advanced features required by the others (TaskManager, unit_on_found) such as choice compounds etc. will only be available in the next major release of xosoap.

From my perspective, you now have three options:

• Depending on your time schedule, you might wait for an early preview of the xosoap rewrite that comes with the necessary features. I will be working on this in the first week of January, and there is a certain chance that I might provide support for the features your scenarios require. However, I can't make this a firm promise, the entire rewrite will only be finished for the OpenACS conference in Guatemela City in the mid of February. Also Tom might be working on tWSDL/TWiST consumer part (!?) in the meantime ...
• Provide RPC style wrappers in an alien environment, such as Axis, that hide the document/literal issues from xosoap consumers. I, personally, consider this a considerable extra amount of work and source of complexity. But is might be feasible ...
• For the time being, assemble and use the raw xml messages required by the services (using tdom). It is quite easy to extract sample or template raw messages from the interface descriptions. Tools such as http://soapui.org make this an ease ... Of course, this is only a temporary solution but still a valid recommendation.

Again, I will be working on the xosoap rewrite over the next week. Let me know whether you can afford waiting for xosoap to mature in these directions, so I can put some effort in getting your scenarios supported ...

cheers
//s

Tom,

The main issue, in my mind, is that you have several examples which will never be handled by a generic client without some hand programming.
Any complexType which adds attributes is going to require hand coding. There is simply no generic interpretation of how to handle values that are in both attributes and as element content.

I wouldn't sign the above statement. While it is common sense that xml/xml-s idiosyncrasies are critical when using xml as representation/ streaming format, it is a question of design whether to you want developers of your framework to express these more or less subtle differences when creating their mappings.

The attribute vs. element issue is one of the most trivial cases IF considered isolated from other xml/xml-s idiosynchrasies. It gets more complex once you consider the nillability constraint, just to name a prominent one. The approach taken by most frameworks (Axis, .NET, ...) is to generate per-type marshallers (note that "type" refers to "class type" with classes being representations of element types) from xml-s descriptions embedded in wsdls. They, then, take care of streaming ("serialising") certain members of an object into element attributes. It's a rather declarative approach.

In the end, it boilds down to the question for which overall purpose you want to conceptualise and devise your framework, which "remoting" lifecycles you want to support!
In conventional (OO)-RPC middleware, you deal with rather atomic, operation-level interactions (of objects) which may allow a design that simply rejects element attributes as representation flavour. This is fully valid and acceptable! In this life-cycle, developer devise procedures or objects first, representations come second. Once you enter other scenarios, where "document/ content models" are devised first, and language representations (procs or objects) are secondary, you end up with the need to support more of the xml/xml-s idionsynchrasies. This key distinction is also prominently mentioned at the beginning of the article posted above with the authors referring to schema-first vs. object-first approaches.

I'm talking about WSDL, which is a standard for describing a web service. Anyone who wishes to pick up a web service client have have it 'understand' the web service automatically should know that there are limits on when this can be done. The term for this understanding is interoperability. And it means that there are no ambiguous features in the description.

However, even WSDL is a pretty loose standard. I've pointed out before that an easier standard to follow is the WS-I Basic Profile:

http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.0-2004-04-16.html

Maybe you think I'm talking about how you translate an existing interface into a web service? Not sure, but the issue is a client issue, not a server issue. WSDL is used to abstract the interface away from the programming language used on the server. Otherwise, consuming an Axis service would require an Axis client, ruling out the use of OpenACS, C# or any other client. One of the main problems for interoperability with web services is their continued tie to the RPC style. It is easy to implement because it is based upon mapping programming types to a message format. Assuming client and server are based upon the same programming language, this is easy, but it isn't interoperable outside these rigid and narrow limits.

In the present case we have an Axis based service. The service is defined using a WSDL. My assumption was that the client should automatically read and understand the definition so that it can construct client API to invoke the operations. When the data is transfered as element content only, it is easier to create client API. In this case the parent could be considered a class or an object, and the child elements are slots, or whatever the correct word would be for the language. If you add attributes, there is an ambiguous quality. Without human analysis, you can't determine if the element attribute is logically part of the element data, or a comment on the data itself. For instance, the element content could be encoded, so an attribute could be targeted at the serializer/deserializer code and not the application.

This is, again, the easy case: data element have attributes. The hard case is a WSDL which has extensions. Who could ever provide a client which understood private extensions automatically, without hand coding? Nobody, outside the narrow meaning of the basic WSDL, very little can or should have a fixed meaning.

Tom,

If you add attributes, there is an ambiguous quality. Without human analysis, you can't determine if the element attribute is logically part of the element data, or a comment on the data itself. For instance, the element content could be encoded, so an attribute could be targeted at the serializer/deserializer code and not the application.

Again, this is what I referred to as "content-/ document-model-first" versus "language-construct-first" (or, schema-first versus object-first). It depends on your scenario and the set of requirements embodied in coded conventions. Justis' WSDLs are auto-generated by Axis which implies an object-first simplification. For the resulting Java objects, it does not make any difference whether an object member (i.e. property or slot in XOTcl terms) is transmitted as element or element attribute. That is, in object-first scenarios, there is hardly any quality difference between element and attribute content because the underlying object systems does not make these distinctions.

Your statement is certainly valid but only for schema-first scenarios, where we cannot stream-line schema information in the meta-object level of an object system. But this is certainly NOT an issue with Justis' WSDLs ...

Without human analysis, you can't determine if the element attribute is logically part of the element data, or a comment on the data itself. For instance, the element content could be encoded, so an attribute could be targeted at the serializer/deserializer code and not the application.

Again, you refer to something which does not concern Justis' WSDLs at all. In Document/Literal style, document content is not "encoded" as it would be with SOAP Encoding or whatsoever. It is a proper document that can be thrown against any XML schema.

Malte,

Also, how would you implement the "getProject" glueing in OpenACS if I have a TCL procedure that returns the project_id when called.

I tried to sketch a ready-to-take sample for you below ... did I get it right when assuming that you want to expose an existing tcl proc through a soap channel?

# / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
# $Id$
# -) prerequisites
namespace eval :some_name_space {
  proc getProject {input} {
    # retrieve project_id based on input ...
    set project_id 1
    return $project_id
  }
}
namespace eval ::cognovis {

  ::xo::db::require package xotcl-request-broker
  namespace import ::xorb::*

  # 1-) provide an interface description aka 'service contract'
  ServiceContract EchoProject -defines {
    Abstract getProject \
	-arguments {
	  input:xsString
	} -returns returnValue:xsInteger \
	-description {
	  A sample echo operation that returns
	  an arbitrary integer value.
	}
  } -ad_doc {
    This is the sample interface description as requested
    by Malte ...
  }

  # 1a-) deploy your interface description
  EchoProject deploy

  # 2-) Provide 'servant' code and register it with the invoker:
  # 'service implementation'
  ServiceImplementation EchoProjectImpl \
      -implements EchoProject \
      -using {
	Delegate getProject \
	    -for ::some_name_space::getProject \
	    {Delegates calls to the servant proc indicated ...}
      }

  # 3a-) deploy your service implementation
  EchoProjectImpl deploy
}

As for the second issue, i.e. document/literal support for the consumer side:

... how far did you manage to get with document/literal and is there a way to help speed up the process?

I am closing down and started rewriting xosoap allover, I have a somewhat firm deadline for the Jan 24, so, hopefully, till Sunday, there will be something operative (though not completed). Currently I can't think of anything that I can easily delegate to you, but I will think a bit and come back to you ... thanks for the kind offer!

For the sake of completeness (and the records). I spotted a critical typo in the code sample above that had evaded my eyes:

# 2-) Provide 'servant' code and register it with the invoker:

  # 'service implementation'

  ServiceImplementation EchoProjectImpl \

      -implements EchoProject \

      -using {

	Delegate getProject \

	    -for ::some_name_space::getProject \

	    {Delegates calls to the servant proc indicated ...}

      }

needs to be

# 2-) Provide 'servant' code and register it with the invoker:

  # 'service implementation'

  ServiceImplementation EchoProjectImpl \

      -implements EchoProject \

      -using {

	Delegate getProject \

	    -for ::some_name_space::getProject \

	    -ad_doc { Delegates calls to the servant proc indicated ...}

      }

Note the missing thingy is the "-ad_doc" flag ...