RE: Version attribute for WSDL

I was supporting Tom's suggestion: version is on the definitions element.  One could imagine putting the same kind of version attribute on the interface or operation, but that seems to be more complex than necessary.
 
I figure that if somebody extends and interface and wants to increase the version # of the interface, it isn't necessary to distinguish between that and increasing the version # of the definitions.  This also keeps the re-use complexity down.
 
Dave

 -----Original Message----- 
 From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org on behalf of Vambenepe, William N 
 Sent: Thu 2/19/2004 11:28 AM 
 To: Prasad Yendluri; www-ws-desc@w3.org 
 Cc: 
 Subject: RE: Version attribute for WSDL
 
 
 David, in your proposal, you suggest to create a URI based on the namespace URI of the "older" interface. That sounds good, but where does this URI go? First I assumed you meant it goes in an attribute of type anyURI that we would add to interface, and I replied to you that this URI should go as the namespace URI for the "newer" interface instead. Then I re-read your text and I thought maybe this is what you meant all along. Now I am confused again. Can you please clarify where in the WSDL you would put the "versioned" URI? As the namespace of the "newer" interface or not.
  
 Prasad, I don't see what the problem is with creating a new namespace URI by using a previous namespace URI as a base.
  
 William
  

  -----Original Message-----
  From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Prasad Yendluri
  Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 5:31 PM
  To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
  Subject: Re: Version attribute for WSDL
  
  


  David Orchard wrote:
  

   Creating a URI from the namespace name and version is not messing with the namespace URI. 
   

  I did not suggest that at all. My response is based on William's note below, the text around "Yes, I fully agree with doing this in the URI that represents the namespace." I interpreted that to mean changing the namespace URI. If we are not, I have no issue (on that).
  
  

   It's about having a normative way of generating a URI from a base URI, in this case an NS URI, and a secondary resource identifier, in this case a version identifier.  We could use #, ;, / to separate.  Just depends on whether you want the server to see the secondary resource identifier or not.  This seems like a new symbol space to me...
    
   This is all completely valid and expected within the web and web services architecture..
    
   Dave
   -----Original Message-----
   From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Prasad Yendluri
   Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 4:53 PM
   To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
   Subject: Re: Version attribute for WSDL
   
   

    Messing with the namespace URI (and effectively changing namespace) for versioning seems undesirable to me. 
    I like to keep version a separate attribute distinct from the namespace and actually I prefer that it be a +ve numerical.
    A higher value representing a younger (subsequent) version than the lower valued one. Also IMO we 
    must clearly define the semantics of this attribute lest we end up creating another area of confusion. 
    The following semantics look good to me.
    
    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.
    In essence I am for Tom's (2nd) proposal below except the approach suggested in example 2. When an incompatible change is made, 
    it should be left up to the WSDL writer to decide how to change the namespace URI rather the spec dictating it.
    
    I don't quite understand the issue with defaulting the version to "1" if not set explicitly however...
    
    Regards, Prasad
    
    -------- Original Message -------- 
Subject:  RE: Version attribute for WSDL 
Resent-Date:  Fri, 13 Feb 2004 18:49:15 -0500 (EST) 
Resent-From:  www-ws-desc@w3.org 
Date:  Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:48:53 -0800 
From:  Vambenepe, William N <vbp@hp.com> <mailto:vbp@hp.com>  
To:  David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com> <mailto:dorchard@bea.com> , <paul.downey@bt.com> <mailto:paul.downey@bt.com> , <tomj@macromedia.com> <mailto:tomj@macromedia.com> , <www-ws-desc@w3.org> <mailto:www-ws-desc@w3.org>  

    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" <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" <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
    > > > >

Received on Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:20:50 UTC