Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | [hotbug] [WSDL4J] org.wsdl4j plugin uses obsolete WSDL MIME binding schema | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [WebTools] WTP Webservices | Reporter: | Valentin Baciu <valentinbaciu> |
| Component: | wst.wsdl | Assignee: | Valentin Baciu <valentinbaciu> |
| Status: | CLOSED FIXED | QA Contact: | Craig Salter <csalter> |
| Severity: | major | ||
| Priority: | P2 | CC: | david_williams, hristo.sabev, jlanuti, john.oshea, lmandel, twagner |
| Version: | 1.5 | ||
| Target Milestone: | 1.5.3 M153 | ||
| Hardware: | PC | ||
| OS: | Windows XP | ||
| Whiteboard: | PMC_approved | ||
|
Description
Valentin Baciu
Let's see if we can fix this in WTP 1.5.3 mass update to remove target for all those targeted to 1.5.3 that were "normal" severity and "priority 3" (on the surface those dont' seem serious enough to fix in a maintenance release). If I have made an error pleasae reset target and set priority appropriately. As a workaround one should be able to override the broken schema by specifying a user catalog entry pointing to the new schema. Here's how to do this: - download the new schema from the URL I mentioned in the opening comment - go to Preferences/Web and XML/XML Catalog, - select the User Specified Entries and click Add. - in the dialog browse to the location where you placed the downloaded schema, - specify namespace name as the key - enter the proper namespace in the namespace field. - click OK and save the preferences and you should be all set. - try re-validating your file: the error should go away. Adding hot bug request status on behalf of CapeClear and changing severity to reflect status by this adopter. Justification from John O'Shea:
I have tested the suggested fix (by manually replace the existing wsdl-mime.xsd in org.wsdl4j with the revised wsdlmime-2004-08-24.xsd schema from the ws-i website) and it does resolve the issue without introducing any regressions that I can see.
Unfortunately I have no realistic way to workaround - the suggested workaround requires user intervention for each installation which is not all that practical. Otherwise I will have to patch the WTP in our all-in-one distribution and I really don't want to do that as it negates possible use of the update manager to install our product on a clean WTP installation (or update the all-in-one later).
I have tried several other workaround, even going as far as trying to unregister the org.wsdl4j catalogContribution extension at startup but the OSGi extension registry won't allow removals
Are you saying we include the old schema in our distribution? So need the new one? So need to submit contribution questionnairre? *** Bug 165921 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** (In reply to comment #5) > Are you saying we include the old schema in our distribution? So need the new > one? So need to submit contribution questionnairre? > No, you need to remove the old schema (a modified version of http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/mime/) and replace it with the new one (http://ws-i.org/profiles/basic/1.1/wsdlmime-2004-08-24.xsd). You'd be taking the new resource directly from the ws-i website so I don't know who would need to submit a new contribution questionairre (someone in WS-I)? Note, the copyright header in the new resource seems to be different. I filled out the contribution questionnaire today. I will update this bug when I hear back from the IP folks. In other words, Valentin accepts this as a valid "hot bug", and being our newest committer, he just didn't know the process of changing the summary. hehe And now the next step in the process: adding John as CC :-) The new MIME bindings schema we're trying to adopt appears to lack a valid license. We're in the process of asking WS-I to correct the license to be in line with the ones used in the original WSDL schemas. John O'Shea, did you want this bug changed to "blocker"? I noticed Tim Wagner changed it when he enter it as a hot-bug request. I'm just triaging "bad bugs" as we near our milestone, and notice this one doesn't seem to meet the criteria for "blocking" ... seems more "major" (missing function) to me. So, I'm wondering if the 'blocking' part was an accident ... or, I could be missing something. If I am missing something, let me know and I'll change it back. But if blocking, it'd be best to document here exactly why it is ... so I won't confuse myself in the future. :) Thanks, David, It is not blocking us - at the moment when packaging our product (into an installer) our build system is replacing the mime schema shipped in org.wsdl4j with the updated version. However the problem markers re-occur if a user uses our update site to download onto a standard WTP 1.5.2 distribution. We also have the same concerns about the copyright notice on the new mime schema that your legal team probably has so the sooner an amended version is published (and incorporated into WTP 1.5.3 hopefully!) the better. The workaround we have in place is intended to be temporary only. John. (In reply to comment #12) > John O'Shea, did you want this bug changed to "blocker"? I noticed Tim Wagner > changed it when he enter it as a hot-bug request. > > I'm just triaging "bad bugs" as we near our milestone, and notice this one > doesn't seem to meet the criteria for "blocking" ... seems more "major" > (missing function) to me. So, I'm wondering if the 'blocking' part was an > accident ... or, I could be missing something. > > If I am missing something, let me know and I'll change it back. > But if blocking, it'd be best to document here exactly why it is ... so I won't > confuse myself in the future. :) > > Thanks, > ok, thanks John ... and we are making progress! ... :) .... just trying to triage so bugs show up on the right lists. (In reply to comment #14) > ok, thanks John ... and we are making progress! ... :) .... just trying to > triage so bugs show up on the right lists. > No word on this since before Christmas. Any update - is this blocked by legal? (In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #14) > > ok, thanks John ... and we are making progress! ... :) .... just trying to > > triage so bugs show up on the right lists. > > > No word on this since before Christmas. Any update - is this blocked by legal? I have contacted a few people and asked them to work with their WS-I contacts to add a proper license to the schema. I don't think the schema will pass legal without it. Around Christmas and well into the begining of the year nothing really happened. I reminded them again around January 10 last time. I will try again. It appears that the schema was finally updated to include a proper license. I will restart the Eclipse IP approval process. Things seem to go the right way with the IP process so I'm preemptively submitting this for PMC approval. I'll preemptively vote +1 then :) Since this is just a file swap (no code change), I think we could accommodate this change with no risk. Another preemptive +1 (on behalf of Arthur) Just for reference, this https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1071 is the IPZilla CQ #. The new schema just got approved by the Eclipse legal team. Unfortunately, as I was getting ready to commit and was diff-ing with the previous version I noted a new change: the mimeXML type and element seem to have been removed. We're in the process of clarifying this change with our WS-I contacts, as we don't want to fix one issue just to create a new one. Fix committed and released for both 1.5.3 and 2.0 builds > 20070206 Verified for 1.5.3 with M-RC1.5.3-200702080326 and for 2.0 with I-I200702080847-200702080847. Closing. I realize that my last post about mimeXML wasn't clear about whether it was left in or taken out. At the time we informed the WS-I WG about the issue and they agreed the removal was unintentional. We knew they were working on fixing it but the WS-I process takes time. So at the time we erred on the side of inclusivity and decided to keep mimeXML in the schema shipped by WTP, pending the official schema fix. I asked for an update today and I found that "the WS-I BP WG has restored it, but the errata has not yet been published. It is being reviewed by the membership and should be approved for publication in September". Of course we'll have to wait for the official publication to settle this for good. |