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

RE: Version attribute for WSDL

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:23:04 -0000
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF0FFF1FB3@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <dorchard@bea.com>, <tomj@macromedia.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

David Orchard wrote:
> Tell me though, is 3.3 compatible with 3.2.1.1?  
> I would assume they would have to be.

I think they'd both have to be backwards compatible within the same ancestry, but maybe 3.2.1.1 has added items not described in 3.3. 

> 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.

that's an interesting idea and maybe could provide scope for some minimal branching if required. The downside is it's not easy to express when branches are merged, e.g.

http://example.com/Service/
http://example.com/Service/HttpBinding
http://example.com/Service/HttpBinding/deleteOperation
http://example.com/Service/HttpBinding/deleteOperation/updateOperation
http://example.com/Service/HttpBinding
http://example.com/Service/MQBinding/deleteOperation
http://example.com/Service/MQBinding/deleteOperation/updateOperaion
http://example.com/Service/Http+MQBinding/deleteOperation/updateOperation

So i think 'version' should uniquely describe the version of the document within the namespace and something else should describe with which previous versions the interface is backwards compatible with.

Also my preference is to not restrict the contents of version or make it an 'integer'.

Paul


-- 
Paul Sumner Downey
Web Services Integration
BT Exact
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2004 11:23:06 UTC

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