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

Re: Optional Extensions

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:22:52 -0500
To: "Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>
Cc: pyendluri@webmethods.com, gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <20040128132252.6f709f3c.alewis@tibco.com>

Well-stated.  +1.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:18:40 +0100
"Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com> wrote:

> 
> I see the value of both sides of the argument. From the service
> perspective, assurance of backward compatibility is
> desireable(non-required extension will not break its current clients);
> from the service users perspective, it maybe a good thing to be at
> least warned that some not-understandable optional extension is
> encountered.
> 
> In stead of saying that the processor MUST *ignore* the
> not-understandable optional extension, would it be better to say that
> the process MUST NOT fault? 
> 
> Best Regards,
> Kevin
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Prasad Yendluri Sent: Tuesday, Jan 27, 2004 02:15 PM
> To: Glen Daniels
> Cc: Web Services Description
> Subject: Re: Optional Extensions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glen Daniels wrote:
> 
> >I'm sorry, but I don't understand this whole "may ignore them"
> >business. What exactly is a processor going to do with an extension
> >it doesn't understand?  IMHO, it has to ignore them unless they are
> >marked as required, in which case it fails. 
> >
> It *can* give an option to a user of the tool to decide if it should
> go ahead ignoring the extensions it did not understand even if they
> are optional extensions or minimally issue a warning message (as a 
> configurable option say). Blindly ignoring and staying silent on the 
> user is the worst thing a tool can do to a user. I may want to build a
> 
> client that understands certain optional extensions I need to use. If 
> the tool does not handle some of the extensions, I as a programmer may
> 
> like to have an option to override and plug in my code as needed or at
> 
> least be notified.
> 
> That way I can decide to buy tool-A that does not understand all the 
> extensions vs Tool-B that does. May be some tool builders :-D would
> not like that.
> 
> Just putting forth a pragmatic perspective for discussion. Grab some 
> cool-aid will you!!!
> 
> > I think this is common sense, but it
> >wouldn't hurt to specify it either.
> >
> Common sense tells me not to blow my top off silly also :)
> 
> >
> >--Glen 
> >
> >  
> >
> 


-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2004 13:23:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:28 GMT