RE: Version attribute for WSDL

My mistake, I thought you were suggesting doing URI tricks inside a
"version" attribute that would be of type URI. Yes, I fully agree with
doing this in the URI that represents the namespace. This is what I
meant in a previous email: "maybe what we need instead is an optional
convention on how to build interface QNames that convey versioning
information. Whether that convention belongs in the WSDL spec is another
question...""

So +1 from me that this is the right approach. I am not sure this group
needs to specify that, but it's fine by me if many people want it in our
spec.

William

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Vambenepe, William N
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 12:41 PM
> To: David Orchard; paul.downey@bt.com; tomj@macromedia.com; 
> www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Version attribute for WSDL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > I wonder if we could play some magic trick and say that the 
> > minor version is a relative URI from the namespace name, and 
> > then the "match" could be of the strings.  A nice use of URIs 
> > for comparison imo.
> 
> Why not play that trick on the URI part of the QName of the interface?
> 
> William
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Orchard
> > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 12:13 PM
> > To: paul.downey@bt.com; tomj@macromedia.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Version attribute for WSDL
> > 
> > 
> > Ah Paul,
> > 
> > I had earlier thought about using URIs for the "minor" 
> > version # and the problem of multiple nested versions and you 
> > are probably right about the problem of increasing minor versions.  
> > 
> > Tell me though, is 3.3 compatible with 3.2.1.1?  I would 
> > assume they would have to be.
> > 
> > I wonder if we could play some magic trick and say that the 
> > minor version is a relative URI from the namespace name, and 
> > then the "match" could be of the strings.  A nice use of URIs 
> > for comparison imo.
> > 
> > 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: Friday, February 13, 2004 10:02 AM
> > > To: dorchard@bea.com; tomj@macromedia.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > > Subject: RE: Version attribute for WSDL
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I like this too, especially the defaulting on extension.
> > > 
> > > My small concern is using the integer to indicate the relationship
> > > between versions precludes branches, unless we allowed a 
> > SCCS/RCS/CVS 
> > > style numbering system, e.g:
> > > 
> > > 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 
> > >           |
> > >           +-> 3.1 -> 3.2 -> 3.3 
> > >                      |
> > >                      +-> 3.2.1
> > >                          |
> > >                          +-> 3.2.1.1 
> > > 
> > > i imagined the proper W3C way would be to use a URI for the 
> > > version and 
> > > relate them using syllogisms ?
> > > 
> > > Paul
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> > > Behalf Of David Orchard
> > > Sent: 13 February 2004 17:47
> > > To: 'Tom Jordahl'; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > > Subject: RE: Version attribute for WSDL
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I like this as a strawman.  And the idea of not inheriting 
> > the version
> > > attribute makes a certain sense too, as it requires the 
> > > "extender" to make a
> > > conscious decision.  Though defaulting to "1" does have the 
> > > problem that the
> > > extender might not be compatible.  If there were some way in 
> > > the "extension"
> > > of knowing that the extensions could be ignored, then "1" 
> > makes sense.
> > > 
> > > cheers,
> > > Dave
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> > > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> > > > Behalf Of Tom Jordahl
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 7:06 AM
> > > > To: 'www-ws-desc@w3.org'
> > > > Subject: RE: Version attribute for WSDL
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I guess I understand the desire to have "real" versioning
> > > > support in WSDL
> > > > 2.0.  I do too. But my proposal came out of the F2F, where we
> > > > had a long,
> > > > and I believe fruitless, discussion about all of this.
> > > >
> > > > I do not believe we can have a section in our specification
> > > > about versioning
> > > > and say "if you want versioning, change the namespace".  
> > > With a small
> > > > addition to the syntax, we can give users some help in
> > > > managing change in
> > > > their web services.
> > > >
> > > > I am willing to apply semantics to the version attribute if 
> > > this group
> > > > thinks that they can move forward in a productive way.  How
> > > > about these
> > > > changes as a straw man for discussion:
> > > >
> > > >  - The version attribute is part of the infoset (a.k.a. the
> > > > component model)
> > > >
> > > >  - The version attribute has type xsd:positiveInteger
> > > >
> > > >  - The version attribute has a default value of 1.
> > > >
> > > >  - The version attribute indicates a "minor" revision of the
> > > > definition or
> > > >    interface. Specifically, a "minor" revision indicates that
> > > > a client using
> > > >    a WSDL with a version attribute less-than the current
> > > > value is expected
> > > >    to continue to function.
> > > >
> > > >  - When an interface extends another interface, the version
> > > > attribute of the
> > > >    interface is NOT inherited - it must be explicitly set on
> > > > the interface,
> > > >    and if is not, the interface has the default version 
> > > attribute (1).
> > > >
> > > > Example 1: Version 1 of my interface has two operations. I
> > > > release a new
> > > > WSDL that adds a third operation, and change the version
> > > > attribute to 2.
> > > > Clients who are using the previous version of the WSDL
> > > > continue to function.
> > > >
> > > > Example 2: My WSDL has a purchase order type defined and a
> > > > target namespace
> > > > of "http://example.org/myservice".  I change my purchase
> > > > order to include
> > > > several new elements and rename some of the old ones.  Since
> > > > this change
> > > > will break compatibility, I change the target namespace to
> > > > "http://example.org/myservice/v2".  My service can now 
> > > easily tell the
> > > > difference between clients that are using the original WSDL
> > > > and the new one.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tom Jordahl
> > > > Macromedia Server Development
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 2:56 AM
> > > > To: Tom Jordahl; 'www-ws-desc@w3.org'
> > > > Subject: RE: Version attribute for WSDL
> > > >
> > > > At 12:41 PM 2/12/2004, Tom Jordahl wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >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.
> > > >
> > > > and the point of "standardizing" this would be?
> > > > (in this case I'm using the word standardize in its loosest most
> > > > meaningless sense :-)
> > > >
> > > > jeff
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >--
> > > > >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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jeff Mischkinsky                      
> jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
> > > > Consulting Member Technical Staff     +1(650)506-1975
> > > > Director, Web Services Standards      500 Oracle 
> Parkway M/S 4OP9
> > > > Oracle Corporation                    Redwood Shores, CA 94065
> > > >
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 13 February 2004 18:49:11 UTC