| Author |
Message
|
| ase2015 |
 Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 5:08 am Post subject: validating message against schema on WSRR |
 |
|
Novice
Joined: 02 Sep 2015
Posts: 16
|
Hi all
i'm trying to validate message against schema deployed on WSRR server
i wonder if it possible to validate message against schema that i get during runtime |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| kimbert |
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
Schemas used by SOAP or XMLNSC must first be deployed to IIB. You could fetch a schema from WSDL in a message flow, but it would not be usable for XML validation using the built-in parsers.
You may want to question the requirement; it is not necessarily a good thing to make it quick and easy to change the schemas used in your services.
_________________
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way you're a mile away, and you have their shoes too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ase2015 |
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 02 Sep 2015
Posts: 16
|
| kimbert wrote: |
Schemas used by SOAP or XMLNSC must first be deployed to IIB. You could fetch a schema from WSDL in a message flow, but it would not be usable for XML validation using the built-in parsers.
You may want to question the requirement; it is not necessarily a good thing to make it quick and easy to change the schemas used in your services. |
thanks for your reply ,it's arequirement to make the application independent of the wsdls
that's why i need to use it or provide agood reason why this requirement can't be implmented  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| ase2015 wrote: |
| a requirement to make the application independent of the wsdls |
But what's driving that requirement? Why has someone decided this is a good idea?
| ase2015 wrote: |
| that's why i need to use it or provide a good reason why this requirement can't be implmented |
Because it's nonsensical. A WSDL is intended (by W3C not IBM or the software) to be a contract that describes a web service provided by an endpoint. Any change to the WSDL is a change to the contract that by definition can't be "independent" of the application. Consider the case where the change to the WSDL is the addition of a new mandatory element, or a change to the data type / specification of an element; how can that possibly be independent of application code.
This sounds a lot like someone trying to set up a generic web service gateway in a very inept fashion.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ase2015 |
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 02 Sep 2015
Posts: 16
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| ase2015 wrote: |
| a requirement to make the application independent of the wsdls |
But what's driving that requirement? Why has someone decided this is a good idea?
| ase2015 wrote: |
| that's why i need to use it or provide a good reason why this requirement can't be implmented |
Because it's nonsensical. A WSDL is intended (by W3C not IBM or the software) to be a contract that describes a web service provided by an endpoint. Any change to the WSDL is a change to the contract that by definition can't be "independent" of the application. Consider the case where the change to the WSDL is the addition of a new mandatory element, or a change to the data type / specification of an element; how can that possibly be independent of application code.
This sounds a lot like someone trying to set up a generic web service gateway in a very inept fashion. |
indeed 
we are trying to create an application with generic webService gateway and all service required information /transformation will be on WSRR where you can manage the service,enable/disable it or change on it's related info |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| ase2015 wrote: |
| we are trying to create an application with generic webService gateway and all service required information /transformation will be on WSRR where you can manage the service,enable/disable it or change on it's related info |
How do you plan to get all the transformation logic within WSRR?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ase2015 |
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 02 Sep 2015
Posts: 16
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| ase2015 wrote: |
| we are trying to create an application with generic webService gateway and all service required information /transformation will be on WSRR where you can manage the service,enable/disable it or change on it's related info |
How do you plan to get all the transformation logic within WSRR? |
using xslt
i know it's aperformance overhead but it's acceptable due to the expected load |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| ase2015 wrote: |
| using xslt |
Why exactly have you bothered to buy IIB? If all you want to do is link WSDL and XSLT there are a lot cheaper ways of doing it, and you're wasting a lot of the functionality of IIB that you're paying for.
| ase2015 wrote: |
| i know it's aperformance overhead but it's acceptable due to the expected load |
Again if the expected load is so low that you can take the hit of using XSLT why pay for a high performance transformation engine like IIB?
If the expected load is that low, why do you need a generic gateway?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ase2015 |
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 02 Sep 2015
Posts: 16
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| ase2015 wrote: |
| using xslt |
Why exactly have you bothered to buy IIB? If all you want to do is link WSDL and XSLT there are a lot cheaper ways of doing it, and you're wasting a lot of the functionality of IIB that you're paying for.
| ase2015 wrote: |
| i know it's aperformance overhead but it's acceptable due to the expected load |
Again if the expected load is so low that you can take the hit of using XSLT why pay for a high performance transformation engine like IIB?
If the expected load is that low, why do you need a generic gateway? |
i think we went alittle bit away from the discussion reason
i agree with you but it's arch/management decision |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| ase2015 wrote: |
| i think we went alittle bit away from the discussion reason |
Okay, fair point, let's move back onto topic.
| ase2015 wrote: |
i'm trying to validate message against schema deployed on WSRR server
i wonder if it possible to validate message against schema that i get during runtime |
No it isn't. IIB is built to validate and transform messages without reference to external objects (like XSLT).
But it is possible with one of the cheaper solutions I mentioned.
| ase2015 wrote: |
| it's arch/management decision |
Which is what I was getting at. Why are you paying a lot of money for a piece of software that doesn't work the way you want it to, for a solution that doesn't seem to be required for the work going through it.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ase2015 |
| Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2015 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 02 Sep 2015
Posts: 16
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| ase2015 wrote: |
| i think we went alittle bit away from the discussion reason |
Okay, fair point, let's move back onto topic.
| ase2015 wrote: |
i'm trying to validate message against schema deployed on WSRR server
i wonder if it possible to validate message against schema that i get during runtime |
No it isn't. IIB is built to validate and transform messages without reference to external objects (like XSLT).
But it is possible with one of the cheaper solutions I mentioned.
| ase2015 wrote: |
| it's arch/management decision |
Which is what I was getting at. Why are you paying a lot of money for a piece of software that doesn't work the way you want it to, for a solution that doesn't seem to be required for the work going through it. |
So as asummarize to our conversation
there is no such way to validate message dynamically on IIB
but why ?
i sthere such topic on info center mentioned that |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
| Quote: |
So as asummarize to our conversation
there is no such way to validate message dynamically on IIB
but why ?
i sthere such topic on info center mentioned that |
IIB can validate messages against XSD's that it knows about. It seems to me that why you are after is the following:-
1) Get a message and use some indicator to decide what type it is.
2) Download the WSDL for that type from WSRR
3) Validate the message against the newly downloaded WSDL.
This can't be done.
What can be done is (in simple terms)
1) Get a message and use some indicator to decide what type it is.
2) Validate the message against a KNOWN WSDL/XSD. By known, on that is deployed into the IIB/Broker Integration Server/Execution Group.
That is dynamic but not the sort of dynamic that you require
Oh, and XSLT's are a step backwards IMHO. {other opinions are available}
_________________
WMQ User since 1999
MQSI/WBI/WMB/'Thingy' User since 2002
Linux user since 1995
Every time you reinvent the wheel the more square it gets (anon). If in doubt think and investigate before you ask silly questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
