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

RE: Extensions and Import/Include

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:39:14 -0400
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Arthur Ryman" <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF87FAB8D1.568888B7-ON85257188.00685976-85257188.006BFEC9@ca.ibm.com>
Jonathan,

Yes, I think the spec needs clarification and I made a proposal in 
responce to Jacek [1].

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jun/0034.html

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca



"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
06/09/2006 02:34 PM

To
"Arthur Ryman" <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
cc

Subject
RE: Extensions and Import/Include







This is a good answer to my concern.  Thanks for thinking this through
so clearly!

Do you think we need to state in the spec that building a component
model is a function of the WSDL provided, plus the set of extensions the
processor understands, without mentioning the dreaded "processor" word?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Arthur Ryman
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 5:00 AM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Extensions and Import/Include
> 
> 
> I've had further thoughts on the interaction between extensions and
> the import/include mechanism. Jonathan asked if the WS-A extension
> would violate my proposed restrictions. I don' t think is does because
> of the recent "clarifications" about how extensions work.
> 
> I had assumed that the presence of an extension was triggered by the
> content of a document. This is wrong since we agreed that an extension
> was in effect whether or not a document actually contained any markup
> from it's namespace. For example, if you claim that a component model
> conforms to the wsdlx extension then ALL operations have a {safety}
> property whether or the wsdlx:safe attribute is present.
> 
> Therefore it is fine for WS-A to add properties to components even if
> there is no markup in those components (e.g. Interface components).
> This doesn't violate the import/include restriction because you get
> the same properties added whether or not a component is brought in via
> import/include or is defined in the document. The extension is present
> globally and uniformly throughout the component model. A processor can
> therefore read (and optionally cache) each document exactly once and
> then assemble them into the full component model instance.
> 
> This implies that we can't just talk about component models. We have
> to talk about extended component models, i.e. the core component model
> plus a set of extensions. The presence of extensions is independent of
> the document content and therefore we have to specify which extensions
> are present when we consider the validity of a component model
> instance.
> 
> -- Arthur
> 
Received on Friday, 9 June 2006 19:40:06 GMT

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