W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2004

RE: Version attribute for WSDL

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:58:14 -0800
To: "'Tom Jordahl'" <tomj@macromedia.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00d801c3f1b3$50a31190$6501a8c0@beasys.com>

I'd rather not have the attribute than nothing about it.  I fail to see a
useful reason to provide a named attribute extensibility versus arbitrary
extensibility.  Without any kind of constraint, there's not much in the way
of interop that will happen.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Tom Jordahl
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 12:41 PM
> To: 'www-ws-desc@w3.org'
> Subject: RE: Version attribute for WSDL
>
>
>
>
> David,
>
> We wouldn't say anything like this about the version attribute.
>      "..it has no semantics.."
>
> So David can tell his WSDL consumers that he uses this
> attribute to indicate
> compatible versions of the same WSDL file.  And I can tell my
> users that
> version 1 does not equal version 2.  But as WSDL spec authors
> we don't have
> to take a stand on how this is done.
>
> Isn't that nice?  We don't have to fight about what it means.
>
> --
> Tom Jordahl
> Macromedia Server Development
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 2:32 PM
> To: paul.downey@bt.com; vbp@hp.com; tomj@macromedia.com;
> www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Version attribute for WSDL
>
> I'm interested in the version attribute for identifying
> versions within
> "compatible" definitions.  I would like to have our spec say
> explicitly
> that.  I am strongly strongly opposed to using a version attribute for
> identifying different incompatible versions.  That's what
> namespaces and
> URIs are for.
>
> Some off-the-cuff suggestions for the wording:
>
> "The version attribute identifies a particular version of the
> definitions,
> that is compatible with all other versions with the same
> targetnamespace.
> It SHOULD not be used to identify incompatible definition versions."
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of paul.downey@bt.com
> > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 9:02 AM
> > To: vbp@hp.com; tomj@macromedia.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Version attribute for WSDL
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe the version value is useful information for when the
> > interface has been compatibly changed within the same namespace.
> >
> > +1 Tom's proposal, i can't see any harm and it could be useful
> > as a building block for a mechanism for relating an interface
> > version to other versions, akin to the 'previous', 'this' and
> > 'latest' version URLs on W3C publications.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of Vambenepe, William N
> > Sent: 12 February 2004 16:53
> > To: Tom Jordahl; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Version attribute for WSDL
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks Tom for the proposal. I could live with this attribute on
> > <definitions> but I really don't like it on <interface>. As Glen
> > eloquently explained at the F2F, a different interface should use a
> > different QName. What does it mean for a binding to reference an
> > interface if there are dozens of "versions" of this interface. Can I
> > have a binding for only a certain version of an interface? I know we
> > don't have to answer this since we "define no semantic" but
> > that doesn't
> > make the problem go away.
> >
> > William
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> > > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tom Jordahl
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 6:13 AM
> > > To: 'www-ws-desc@w3.org'
> > > Subject: Version attribute for WSDL
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In fulfillment of my action item received at the January F2F,
> > > here is a
> > > proposal to add a version attribute to WSDL to aid in the
> > > versioning of WSDL
> > > documents and interfaces.
> > >
> > > I propose that an attribute with the name "version" be
> added to the
> > > <definitions> element of WSDL.  This attribute is for user
> > > convenience, and
> > > the specification would define no semantics for it,
> > > specifically the value
> > > of this attribute would NOT be included in the infoset.
> > > However, it is
> > > expected that WSDL authors and consumers can use this
> > attribute, when
> > > present, to differentiate between different revisions of a
> > > WSDL document.
> > >
> > > Example:
> > >
> > > <definitions version="1" targetNamespace=http://sample.org/>
> > > ...
> > > </definitions>
> > >
> > > This proposal is modeled after the version attribute of XML
> > > Schema, see
> > > section 3.15.2 in Part 1 of the XML Schema specification:
> > >   http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#Schemas
> > >
> > > In our specification, section 2.1.2 would be updated to
> > > include the new
> > > attribute:
> > >
> > > 2.1.2 XML Representation of Definitions Component
> > >
> > > <definitions
> > >       targetNamespace="xs:anyURI"
> > >       version = "xs:token"? >
> > >   <documentation />?
> > >   [ <import /> | <include /> ]*
> > >   <types />?
> > >   [ <interface /> | <binding /> | <service /> ]*
> > > </definitions>
> > >
> > >
> > > Additionally, I propose that a similar version attribute be
> > > added to the
> > > <interface> element of WSDL. This attribute would mirror the
> > > definitions
> > > attribute.  Again, this would be for user convenience, and
> > > the specification
> > > would define no semantics for it, specifically the value of
> > > this attribute
> > > would NOT be included in the infoset.  WSDL authors and
> > > consumers could use
> > > this attribute, when present, to differentiate between
> > > different revisions
> > > of an interface.  In particular, this would enable a
> consumer of the
> > > document to know explicitly when an interface they are using
> > > has changed.
> > >
> > > Example:
> > > <definitions>
> > >   <interface name="myInterface" version="alpha17">
> > >     ...
> > >   </interface>
> > > </definitions>
> > >
> > >
> > > 2.2.2 XML Representation of Interface Component
> > > <definitions>
> > >   <interface
> > >         name="xs:NCName"
> > >         extends="list of xs:QName"?
> > >         styleDefault="xs:anyURI"?
> > >         version = "xs:token"? >
> > >     <documentation />?
> > >     [ <operation /> | <feature /> | <property /> ]*
> > >   </interface>
> > > </definitions>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom Jordahl
> > > Macromedia Server Development
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2004 16:57:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:15:02 UTC