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

RE: Optional Extensions

From: Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:01:13 -0800
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20040128105830.025aa2a8@rgmamerimap.oraclecorp.com>
To: "Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>, "'Prasad Yendluri'" <pyendluri@webmethods.com>, Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Cc: Web Services Description <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

At 10:18 AM 1/28/2004, Liu, Kevin 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?

I like this better. But what happens if i want to be super-strict/paranoid 
and implement a policy (lower case policy :-) and be very sure that I 
understand everything in my environment, i.e. i'm not willing to trust 
someone that something is ignorable. What are my choices if we go down this 
path? Is my only alternative to be non-compliant?

cheers,
   jeff


>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
> >
> >
> >

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 Wednesday, 28 January 2004 14:01:18 GMT

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