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

RE: Extensions

From: Sedukhin, Igor <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 11:13:58 -0400
Message-ID: <849C1D32E4C7924F854D8A0356C72A9E04498F99@usilms08.ca.com>
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sanjiva,

>>If needed we can put an ed note in the working draft saying we're considering adding more flexibility and see whether we get feedback asking for it.

By the time we get feedback, it may be too late to make it flexible. By then all WSDL processors will already be implementing logic that we have spec'ed out.

I'm also concerned by the complexity of Jeffrey's wordings. May be, at the initial stages of defining extensions we can get a simple explanation of what it means before we get into formal specifications. I suggest adding this clause:

"When declaring an extension (explicit), all its elements that appear in the WSDL document are by default required for understanding by WSDL processors (i.e. wsdl:required = true). Optional extensions do not have to be declared (implicit) or may be declared specifying wsdl:required = false.
An extension element may override wsdl:required attribute, in which case the element is required or not regardless of the extension declaration. By default an extension element does not override the wsdl:required attrubute and rules apply according to the extension declaration (explicit or implicit)."

It does not sound very complex (to me :) and WSDL processor implementations may easily take it into account.

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



-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 11:42 PM
To: Jeffrey Schlimmer; WS-Desc WG (Public)
Subject: Re: Extensions


Hi Jeffrey,

Your table has too many cells for my liking! It looks like an interop nightmare is being created ..

Why don't we go with the simpler model ala WSDL 1.1 for requiredness? You get per-element "gotta have it" capability and that's it. If needed we can put an ed note in the working draft saying we're considering adding more flexibility and see whether we get feedback asking for it.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
To: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 4:57 AM
Subject: Extensions


Roberto, thank you for patiently explaining the current proposal during the teleconference this morning.

Just to make sure I understand the proposal, can it be accurately restated as?

-----

A WSDL parser MUST recognize a foreign EII if and only if one of the following is true:

(a) The foreign EII has a wsdl:required AII that is true, or

(b) The foreign EII namespace is declared with a wsdl:extension EII, that EII has a wsdl:required AII that is true, and the foreign EII does not have a wsdl:required AII.

-----

(a) is what we have in WSDL 1.1 today. (b) adds the global declaration but allows a wsdl:required AII on the foreign element to override the global declaration.

Attached is a table that I crunched down to the two rules above.

For completeness, let's allow AII extensions via (something like) <xs:anyAttribute namespace="#other" processContents="#lax"/>.

Of course, because the wsdl:required AII cannot be attached to a
(foreign) AII, only the global setting in the wsdl:extension EII can be used to indicate whether a WSDL parser MUST or MAY recognize such an AII.

--Jeff
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2002 11:28:26 GMT

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