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

RE: Optional Extensions

From: Liu, Kevin <kevin.liu@sap.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:00:33 +0100
Message-ID: <99CA63DD941EDC4EBA897048D9B0061DA95DE8@uspalx20a.pal.sap.corp>
To: "'Prasad Yendluri'" <pyendluri@webmethods.com>, Web Services Description <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
the semantic of "fault"ing here should be exactly same as whatever it means in section 6.1.1 "mandatory extensions". 
 
It's an open question if  6.1.1 sufficiently defines what's faulting, but it does indicate faulting as "immediate cease processing (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: Wednesday, Jan 28, 2004 02:22 PM
To: Web Services Description
Subject: Re: Optional Extensions



This works for me. Will there be an issue with clearly defining what "fault"ing is however.

Regards, Prasad

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? 



Best Regards,

Kevin

 



-----Original Message-----

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org <mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org>  [mailto: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.

  
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2004 15:00:44 GMT

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