W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2005

RE: Primer Text for "Versioning and Service Equivalency"

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 11:04:53 +0100
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF2709E19D@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <dorchard@bea.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

David,


> I'm surprised you didn't mention or use:
> 
> http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2004/06/29/interface_compati
> bility_v2
> 
> http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2004/06/29/scenarios_for_int
> erface_compatibility
> 
> http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2004/06/29/using_wsdl_schema
> _for_compatible_evolution
> 
> http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2004/12/01/versioning_servic
> e_data_using_wsdl_application_data_feature


the text i threw together was very much 'a starter for 10' and the
reason i didn't point directly your, or other articles was due to 
a reluctance to reference peoples' blogs from a W3C Recommendation,
all be it a Primer. The references I selected were all on the W3C
site and had a status of 'note' or higher. I'm weary of cut 
and pasting text wholesale from sources without a clear terms of 
license, Creative Commons or whatever.

> I think that a couple of scenarios showing versioning would be great.
> For example, service is versioned in a compatible way, say 
> new operation
> added.  What can the a receiver of the new WSDL do with it?  Another
> variation is using the header nee application data feature.  Another
> example, service is versioned incompatibly, what happens..

I'm happy to introduce some more detailed best practice 
guidelines in particular around the must ignore rule and will 
resubmit a second attempt. However, going down another layer 
into detailed examples is going to balloon this section, somewhat. 

Paul
Received on Monday, 4 April 2005 10:05:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:35 GMT