W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2002

Re: Text for extensibility section

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:29:26 +0200
Message-ID: <3D062566.B86FB555@crf.canon.fr>
To: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
CC: www-ws-desc@w3.org

Overall, this looks good. The two comments I have raised earlier today are : first,
there is some inconsistency in your meaning of "processed"; sometimes it refers to
something that has been processed already, sometimes to something that will be
processed in the future.

The other point is that I think we need to be more careful in describing a WSDL
processor extension when encountering conflicting extensions. Your current wording
would have a WSDL processor abort processing if it found a required extension was
incompatible with an optional extension, even if it could (should) process the
required extension only and ignore the other. I think there is text in the XMLP
spec regarding SOAP extensions which we may wish to reuse. (I don't have Web access
currently, so I can't just cust and paste it here.)

Jean-Jacques.

Glen Daniels wrote:

> This is the text I came up with per yesterday's F2F discussion... comments
> encouraged!
>
> --G
>
> ----------
>
> Any extension element may appear as an immediate child of an element in the
> wsdl namespace.  Such an extension element is said to be processed if the WSDL
> processor decides (through whatever means) that the parent wsdl-namespaced
> element will be processed.  Note that it is possible for WSDL readers to
> process only a subset of a given WSDL document.  For instance, a tool may wish
> to focus on portTypes and operations only, with no need to examine bindings.
>
> If an extension element is processed, and has a "wsdl:required" attribute with
> the value "true", the processor MUST either agree to fully abide by all the
> rules and semantics signalled by the extension element's QName, or immediately
> cease processing (fault).  In particular, if the processor does not recognize
> the QName it must fault.  If it does recognize the QName, and determines that
> the extension in question is incompatible with any other aspect of the document
> (including other extensions), it must also fault.
>
> [ the first version of this text contained a sentence indicating that a
> processor must "pre-determine" all extensions which would be processed for a
> given document, and ensure that the combination of processed + required
> extensions was understood in concert before proceeding, but after further
> thought, I think it may be up to the processor to decide whether this sort of
> thing is necessary.  Presumably, a given extension specification will indicate
> whatever rules must be followed, including any changes to "normal" WSDL
> processing ]
Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2002 12:30:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:20 GMT