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: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 17:17:35 -0400
Message-ID: <849C1D32E4C7924F854D8A0356C72A9E04DB288F@usilms08.ca.com>
To: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Jeff,

1. 
The proposed extension spec text talks about an extension element and its Qname. It does not define this parent/child inheritance of the "requiredness" that you're referring to. At least as I read it. Here is the quote:
"
> 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.
"

So reading the above, I don't understand how can I hang a wsdl:required off an extension attribute such as in
<portType myExt:abc="def"...

I also don't follow on, *from the above text*, how in
	<portType myExt:abc="def"...
	<myExt:allExts wsdl:required="true"/>
myExt:abc and myExt:allExts would be related. They are different Qnames, and therefore rule applies separately to each one.

I understand you point, but if so, it should be formalized somehow in a spec.

2.
If I have a namespace full of top-level elements and attributes used to extend WSDL constructs, why should I  now be grouping all of them under another element to merely indicate requiredness of that extension?
Moreover, if I add ten more top-elements, then I'd have to remember to add them to that grouping element.
Well, I've already done the grouping by putting all those elements in a particular namespace identified by a URI. Isn't it enough? Can't I simply say

<wsdl:requiredExtension namespace="<URI>"/>

I thought that is where we left off on the last call and it was kinda close to be finalized that way... What has happened?

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



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Schlimmer [mailto:jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 2:45 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: RE: Text for extensibility section



Sedukhin, Igor [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com] wrote:
>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?

The new content model for WSDL-defined EII is open to both foreign EII and AII. By default, any foreign AII is an optional "extension". The means to mark a foreign EII or AII as "must recognize" is the same: an EII representing the set of extensions is added as the child of a WSDL-defined EII with wsdl:required='true'.

1. To extend a port type with an optional AII, just add the AII to the port type. E.g.,

<portType name="myPortType" myNs:myExtension="0">
...
</portType>

To extend a port type with a "must recognize" AII, add the AII to the port type and add an EII to signal that the AII (and other EII) must be understood. E.g.,

<portType name="myPortType" myNs:myExtension="0">
  <myNs:greatExtensions wsdl:required='true' />
...
</portType>

In this example, the myNs:greatExtensions EII is defined elsewhere to signal myNs:myExtension AII (presumably in the documentation that describes the myNs namespace and myExtension EII). Note that there is no requirement that the target namespace of the signaling EII must match other EII or AII it covers.

2. You're not.

--Jeff
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 17:18:35 GMT

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