- From: Ricky Ho <riho@cisco.com>
- Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 10:18:35 -0700
- To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
If so, does anyone else recall ? Sanjiva, any better alternative way to cover the 2 scenarios I describe ? Best regards, Ricky At 05:18 PM 9/7/2002 +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: >Unless I'm mistaken we did consider this and rejected it. I may >not be remembering correctly however. > >Sanjiva. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ricky Ho" <riho@cisco.com> >To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org> >Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 11:33 AM >Subject: Port Type Inheritance > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Do we have any discussion around whether we need to provide inheritance >for > > WSDL PortType. By inheritance, I mean the same concept as the Java > > interface inheritance. I do see two use cases. > > > > 1) Administrative operation > > ==================== > > For enterprise scale deployment, I want to monitor the health status of >all > > my web services, as well as to remote turn on debugging. Therefore, I >want > > to mandate all my services to support certain operations such as "reset", > > "getHealthStatus". However, I have no way to enforce that at this moment. > > It would be nice if I just need to tell my developer that their PortType > > need to inherit "ManagablePortType" where such operations are defined. > > > > 2) Change control > > ============= > > WSDL itself will evolve and change, but how do we make sure the newer > > version is backward compatible to the old one so existing client won't > > break. If we have PortType inheritance, then the new PortType just need >to > > inherit the old PortType. Of course, the implementation can optionally > > throw a SOAP fault so that the client will be upgraded. > > > > Thoughts and comments ?? > > > > Best regards, > > Ricky
Received on Sunday, 8 September 2002 20:34:53 UTC