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

RE: Text for extensibility section

From: Sedukhin, Igor <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:04:13 -0400
Message-ID: <849C1D32E4C7924F854D8A0356C72A9E04AF3F75@usilms08.ca.com>
To: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
1. What if I want to introduce an attribute to extend, say portType? How am I going to mark that one required?

2. Why should I be prevented from extending WSDL constructs with attributes?

-- Igor Sedukhin .. (Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788



-----Original Message-----
From: Glen Daniels [mailto:gdaniels@macromedia.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:11 AM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Text for extensibility section



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 Wednesday, 12 June 2002 10:04:45 GMT

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