Re: Revised extensibility proposal

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

> Hi Roberto,
>
> This looks good to me. The syntax I was proposing was:
>
>    <wsdl:extension prefix="p" required="boolean"?/>*
>
> where there should be an in-scope namespace declaration for the
> prefix p. That just makes life a bit easier by not forcing one
> to write the same NS URI twice.
>
> I suggest that we make the required attribute default to true.

That's fine with me. It's likely to be the most common case.

> I'm not quite clear on item (6) of your list. Can you clarify
> what you have in mind please?

I was trying to provide guidelines on how one particular kind
of extensions, those that define new constructs, should behave
so that they fit nicely in WSDL. In particular, these extensions
(or better the entities they define) should be referenceable from
other extensions using QNames the same way that portTypes,
messages, bindings, etc are.

> I think we also need to add wording to the effect that extensions
> are not allowed to change the defined behavior of any WSDL elements.
> (The XSLT spec has wording that can be used as sample.) Basically,
> we shouldn't allow extensions to change the semantics of any spec
> defined constructs!

But WSDL elements do not have behavior by themselves, and I don't
see any problems in having an extension modify the processing rules
for the whole document. Perhaps we'll be able to state some
restrictions once we get an abstract model for WSDL.

Roberto

--
Roberto Chinnici
Java and XML Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2002 16:53:24 UTC