RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal

So it means that if I want to have an optional extension and I have 1000 elements of that extension in the document, I will have to remember to place wsdl:required=false on all of them? Why??...

-- 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: Thursday, May 30, 2002 10:43 AM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Re: Doubly revised extensibility proposal



Yep, that's exactly what I was proposing! Simple, ain't it? ;-)

To answer your questions:

    > So then how do I declare an optional extension?

    You do it at on a per-element level using wsdl:required=false.

    > How do I declare a required one?

    Everything is required unless otherwise indicated (see above).

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sedukhin, Igor" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 8:27 PM
Subject: RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal


>
> Oh, no :), I hope he didn't mean that. Sanjiva, could you please
elaborate...
>
> -- Igor Sedukhin .. (Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com)
> -- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 10:23 AM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal
>
>
>
> My guess is Sanjiva means something like:
>
>                          -- wsdl:extension omitted
>                          |     -- wsdl:extension present
>                          |     |
>                          |     |
>                          |     |
> @wsdl:required omitted  ERR   MUST
> @wsdl:required false    ERR   MAY
> @wsdl:required true     ERR   MUST
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sedukhin, Igor [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 7:18 AM
> To: Sanjiva Weerawarana; Jonathan Marsh; Roberto Chinnici;
www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal
>
> So then how do I declare an optional extension? How do I declare a
required one?
> The table was merely summarizing that. There is no way to understand 
> it
from the simple form below.
> -- 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: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 10:59 PM
> To: Sedukhin, Igor; Jonathan Marsh; Roberto Chinnici; 
> www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Doubly revised extensibility proposal
>
> I would still prefer to just have the simple form in the first WD and 
> make
it more powerful (as the following supports) later if we feel the need for it. This my personal approach: I don't like to solve problems
> that I don't know exist. If there are no use-cases, or expected 
> use-cases,
that justify this flexibility then I'm -1 on putting it in. The simple form
is:
> Declare extension namespace:
> <wsdl:extension namespace="anyURI"/>
> Use it:
> .. somewhere xmlns:ext="anyURI"
> .. <ext:fooElem .../> or ext:barAttr="value"
> Indicate not requiredness:
> <ext:fooElem wsdl:required="false" ../>
> The simple form doesn't have attribute level optionality. IMO that's 
> ok. Sanjiva.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sedukhin, Igor" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>
> To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>; "Roberto Chinnici"
<roberto.chinnici@sun.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 6:47 AM
> Subject: RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal
>
> > That is right. Let's embed the second table into the spec. I'm +1.
> >
> > -- Igor Sedukhin .. (Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com)
> > -- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 6:44 PM
> > To: Roberto Chinnici; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal
> >
> >
> > > One small change that might go unnoticed is that the default value 
> > > for
> > the
> > > "required" attribute of a wsdl:extension element is now "true".
> >
> > So Jeffrey's table changes from:
> > -- wsdl:extension omitted
> > | -- wsdl:extension @required omitted
> > | | -- wsdl:extension @required false
> > | | | -- wsdl:extension @required
> > true
> > | | | |
> > @wsdl:required omitted MAY MAY MAY MUST
> > @wsdl:required false MAY MAY MAY MAY
> > @wsdl:required true MUST MUST MUST MUST
> >
> > to:
> > -- wsdl:extension omitted
> > | -- wsdl:extension @required omitted
> > | | -- wsdl:extension @required false
> > | | | -- wsdl:extension @required
> > true
> > | | | |
> > @wsdl:required omitted MAY *MUST* MAY MUST
> > @wsdl:required false MAY MAY MAY MAY
> > @wsdl:required true MUST MUST MUST MUST
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Roberto Chinnici [mailto:roberto.chinnici@sun.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 11:58 AM
> > > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > > Subject: Doubly revised extensibility proposal
> > >
> > > Here's the latest version of the extensibility proposal.
> > >
> > > I extended it (excuse the pun) with attribute extensions, since 
> > > we've
> > been
> > > discussing
> > > them on the mailing list. Also, I got rid of the "recommendations"
> > section
> > > (since it
> > > doesn't seem to belong with the rest) and moved some paragraphs
> > around.
> > >
> > > One small change that might go unnoticed is that the default value 
> > > for
> > the
> > > "required" attribute of a wsdl:extension element is now "true".
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Roberto
> > >
> > > --
> > > Roberto Chinnici
> > > Java and XML Software
> > > Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> > >
> > > ========
> > >
> > > 1. Allow extension elements on every WSDL element, e.g. by adding 
> > > <xsd:any namespace="##other" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" 
> > > processContents="lax"/> to every complex type in the WSDL schema.
> > >
> > > Similarly, allow extension attributes on every WSDL element, e.g. 
> > > by adding <xsd:anyAttribute namespace="##other" 
> > > processContents="lax"/>.
> > >
> > > Any element or attribute matching the rules above is an Extension.
> > For
> > > clarity,
> > > in what follows we'll sometime use the terms Element Extension
> > (resp.
> > > Attribute
> > > Extension) to indicate an Extension which is an element (resp. an 
> > > attribute).
> > >
> > > 2. Modify the wsdl grammar (section 2.1 of the spec) to add 
> > >Extension  Declarations immediately inside a wsdl:definition 
> > >element:
> > >
> > > <wsdl:definitions name="nmtoken"? targetNamespace="uri"?>
> > >
> > > <wsdl:extension namespace="uri" required="boolean"?/>*
> > >
> > > <wsdl:import namespace="uri" location="uri"/>*
> > >
> > > <!-- rest of the wsdl grammar follows -->
> > >
> > > The default value for the "required" attribute of the
> > "wsdl:extension"
> > > element is "true".
> > >
> > > [Extension Declarations are at the beginning of the document so 
> > > that by the time a processor sees any non-trivial wsdl
> > content,
> > > it's aware of all the processing rules.]
> > >
> > > [Later on, we'll want to add all built-in extensions to the set of 
> > > required extension namespace names, so that they don't get 
> > > declared in
> > each
> > > wsdl document.]
> > >
> > > 3. Keep the wsdl:required attribute (of type xsd:boolean) from 
> > > WSDL
> > 1.1.
> > > This
> > > attribute is meaningful only when applied to Element Extensions.
> > >
> > > 4. Define the following terms:
> > >
> > > The "set of extension namespace names" is formed by collecting the 
> > > values of all the "namespace" attributes of the
> > "wsdl:extension"
> > > elements.
> > >
> > > The "set of required extension namespace names" is formed by 
> > > collecting the values of all the "namespace" attributes of the 
> > > "wsdl:extension" elements whose "required" attribute has a value 
> > > of "true".
> > >
> > > An Attribute Extension is Required if its namespace name is a
> > member
> > > of the set
> > > of required extension namespace names.
> > >
> > > An Element Extension is Required if: (a) its namespace name is a 
> > > member of the set of required extension namespace names AND the 
> > > Extension
> > does
> > > not
> > > have a wsdl:required attribute whose value is "false", or (b) the 
> > > Extension has a wsdl:required attribute whose value is "true".
> > >
> > > 5. Mandate the following processing model:
> > >
> > > a) Extension Declarations
> > >
> > > A processor that encounters an Extension Declaration whose 
> > > "required" attribute has the value of "true" and that does not
> > > recognize
> > its
> > > namespace
> > > MUST stop processing the wsdl document at once.
> > >
> > > A processor that recognizes an Extension Declaration whose 
> > > "required" attribute has the value of "true" MUST obey its rules 
> > > for the entire duration
> > > of its processing of the wsdl document in which it appears.
> > Such
> > > rules are
> > > allowed to override other wsdl processing rules defined by
> > this
> > > specification.
> > >
> > > It is recommended that the effect of these rules be as
> > localized
> > > as possible;
> > > in particular, their effect SHOULD be local to elements that 
> > > contain Extensions belonging to that particular vocabulary.
> > >
> > > b) Required Extensions
> > >
> > > A processor that encounters a Required Extension and that
> > either
> > > doesn't
> > > recognize its vocabulary or fails to process it successfully
> > MUST
> > > stop
> > > processing the wsdl document.
> > >
> > > c) Other Extensions
> > >
> > > A processor that encounters an Extension which is not Required
> > and
> > > whose
> > > vocabulary it does not recognize MUST ignore it.
> > >
> > > A processor that encounters an Extension which is not Required
> > and
> > > whose
> > > vocabulary it understands MUST attempt to process it following
> > the
> > > rules
> > > for that vocabulary. In case of failure, the processor MUST 
> > > continue processing the document as if the Extension had not been
> > present
> > > (thus
> > > having the same effect as if the Extension's vocabulary had
> > not
> > > been
> > > recognized by the processor).
> > >
> >

Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 11:00:38 UTC