RE: Extensions

Sanjiva,

>>Based on first working draft? I don't think people will jump so fast to 
adopt all this stuff. In any case, WDs are meant for getting feedback and showing direction AFAIK.

I do not expect this kind of feedback on WD anyways. I doubt anyone would pay that deep attention to the extensibility. We may only get feedback when there are a few WSDL processor implementations and something cannot be done. Then we've got an issue.

>>Do we have a use-case to justify this level of flexibility in extensions?

I sent one earlier, but the point is really *why not* have the proper flexibility? In fact, I see it's more difficult to come up with restriction rules rather than spell out currently possible variants as rules. They don't seem very complex or numerous to me.

-- Igor Sedukhin .. (Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788



-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 11:36 AM
To: Sedukhin, Igor; Jeffrey Schlimmer; WS-Desc WG (Public)
Subject: Re: Extensions


"Sedukhin, Igor" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com> writes:
> 
>>If needed we can put an ed note in the working draft saying we're  
>>considering adding more flexibility and see whether we get feedback  
>>asking for it.
> 
> By the time we get feedback, it may be too late to make it flexible. 
> By then all WSDL processors will already be implementing logic that we 
> have spec'ed out.

Based on first working draft? I don't think people will jump so fast to 
adopt all this stuff. In any case, WDs are meant for getting feedback and showing direction AFAIK.

> I'm also concerned by the complexity of Jeffrey's wordings. May be, at 
> the initial stages of defining extensions we can get a simple 
> explanation of what it means before we get into formal specifications. 
> I suggest adding this clause:
> 
> "When declaring an extension (explicit), all its elements that appear 
> in the WSDL document are by default required for understanding by WSDL 
> processors (i.e. wsdl:required = true). Optional extensions do not 
> have to be declared (implicit) or may be declared specifying 
> wsdl:required = false. An extension element may override wsdl:required 
> attribute, in which case the element is required or not regardless of
> the extension declaration. By default an extension element 
> does not override the wsdl:required attrubute and rules 
> apply according to the extension declaration (explicit 
> or implicit)."
> 
> It does not sound very complex (to me :) and WSDL processor 
> implementations may easily take it into account.

Do we have a use-case to justify this level of flexibility in extensions?

Sanjiva.

Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2002 15:46:54 UTC