W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2002

RE: Text for extensibility section

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 11:39:10 -0700
Message-ID: <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC107B0A330@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Glen, looks good modulo feedback from Jean-Jacques. Thanks for writing
this up.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 9:29 AM
To: Glen Daniels
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Re: Text for extensibility section

Overall, this looks good. The two comments I have raised earlier today
are : first,
there is some inconsistency in your meaning of "processed"; sometimes it
refers to
something that has been processed already, sometimes to something that
will be
processed in the future.

The other point is that I think we need to be more careful in describing
processor extension when encountering conflicting extensions. Your
current wording
would have a WSDL processor abort processing if it found a required
extension was
incompatible with an optional extension, even if it could (should)
process the
required extension only and ignore the other. I think there is text in
the XMLP
spec regarding SOAP extensions which we may wish to reuse. (I don't have
Web access
currently, so I can't just cust and paste it here.)


Glen Daniels wrote:

> This is the text I came up with per yesterday's F2F discussion...
> encouraged!
> --G
> ----------
> Any extension element may appear as an immediate child of an element
in the
> wsdl namespace.  Such an extension element is said to be processed if
the WSDL
> processor decides (through whatever means) that the parent
> element will be processed.  Note that it is possible for WSDL readers
> process only a subset of a given WSDL document.  For instance, a tool
may wish
> to focus on portTypes and operations only, with no need to examine
> If an extension element is processed, and has a "wsdl:required"
attribute with
> the value "true", the processor MUST either agree to fully abide by
all the
> rules and semantics signalled by the extension element's QName, or
> cease processing (fault).  In particular, if the processor does not
> the QName it must fault.  If it does recognize the QName, and
determines that
> the extension in question is incompatible with any other aspect of the
> (including other extensions), it must also fault.
> [ the first version of this text contained a sentence indicating that
> processor must "pre-determine" all extensions which would be processed
for a
> given document, and ensure that the combination of processed +
> extensions was understood in concert before proceeding, but after
> thought, I think it may be up to the processor to decide whether this
sort of
> thing is necessary.  Presumably, a given extension specification will
> whatever rules must be followed, including any changes to "normal"
> processing ]
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 14:39:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:24 UTC