W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2006

RE: my action re: CR050

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 10:57:26 +0200
To: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
Cc: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1149843446.32737.10.camel@localhost>

Tony, I described my suggested text as complex, abstract and using the
word processor that we eschewed, but I didn't say I didn't like what was
being clarified. 8-)

I do, in fact, support this interpretation (that an extended processor
will have an extended component model), but I'm not sure how to frame
this in the spec.

However, I still think we could, if anyone supports this direction, keep
the component model based on the documents, in which case "awareness" of
an extension would not be enough to add properties if those extensions
are not present in the WSDL document; and that would practically mean
that extensions could not specify REQUIRED properties.

Jacek


On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 14:16 +1000, Rogers, Tony wrote:
> We were discussing this on the implementers' call, too. Arthur put
> forward the position that awareness of an extension may add required
> properties to the component model, even if the extension is not used
> by the WSDL infoset being processed. That's exactly as you described
> it (even though you don't like that idea).
>  
> Consider WS-Addressing - awareness of this extension (or should that
> be, "these extensions"?) means that the {action} property (which is
> required) is added to the component model. So I don't believe we can
> avoid this situation.
>  
> Tony 
> 
>  
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org on behalf of Jacek Kopecky
> Sent: Fri 09-Jun-06 3:54
> To: WS-Description WG
> Subject: my action re: CR050
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I got an action to respond to Jonathan regarding CR050 which we today
> agreed to close with no change to the spec. However, we already
> discussed CR050 on the call on 2006/06/01 and we concluded that if an
> extension is supported, it must obey the constraints, so if safety is
> supported it must be present on all operations. (Basically status
> quo.)
> 
> However, we didn't close the issue because we felt that we needed more
> discussion on how to make the spec clearer about this.
> 
> Let me step forward and suggest how we could perhaps concretely
> clarify
> this. It seems that the best place to do this is in part 1 section 6.3
> Extensibility Semantics [2]. There are already three notes at the end
> of
> this section, and I'm suggesting a fourth one, so maybe it could be
> restructured somehow, but I frankly don't know how. 8-)
> 
> To resolve issue CR050, I suggest we add this note to 6.3:
> 
> Note: The presence of an optional extensibility element or attribute
> may
> introduce new properties to the component model. It may be useful for
> the extensions to define default values for the properties for the
> case
> when the extensibility element or attribute is not present. For
> example,
> _Operation safety_ extension defined in part 2 specifies an attribute
> wsdlx:safe and adds the required property {safety}, defaulting to
> "false" if the attribute is not present on an interface operation.
> This
> behavior suggests that mere understanding (or awareness) of an
> extension
> by a processor can amend the component model, and that different
> processors may parse the same WSDL document into different component
> models, if they support different optional extensions. Since optional
> extensions must not invalidate the meaning of WSDL documents (see
> section 6.1.1.), the different component models resulting from
> differing
> support for optional extension should, on some level, be equivalent.
> However, such component model differences need to be considered if
> component models from different processors are being compared, for
> example for interoperability testing.
> 
> (end of note)
> 
> It's complex, abstract, and it uses the term processor which we
> eschewed, if I remember correctly, but I don't see now how it could be
> clarified better.
> 
> Or maybe we could just make {safety} optional and clarify in 6.3 that
> optional extensions (or any extensions, most probably) cannot
> introduce
> REQUIRED properties because the absence of an extension from the WSDL
> document makes the properties absent as well.
> 
> Sure hope this makes sense,
> 
> Jacek
> 
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jun/att-0004/20060601-ws-desc-minutes.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/#extensibility-semantics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 9 June 2006 08:57:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:40 GMT