- From: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 17:31:13 -0800
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4032C061.5080701@webmethods.com>
David Orchard wrote: > Creating a URI from the namespace name and version is not messing with > the namespace URI. I did not suggest that at all. My response is based on William's note below, the text around "Yes, I fully agree with doing this in the URI that represents the namespace." I interpreted that to mean changing the namespace URI. If we are not, I have no issue (on that). > It's about having a normative way of generating a URI from a base URI, > in this case an NS URI, and a secondary resource identifier, in this > case a version identifier. We could use #, ;, / to separate. Just > depends on whether you want the server to see the secondary resource > identifier or not. This seems like a new symbol space to me... > > This is all completely valid and expected within the web and web > services architecture.. > > Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of Prasad Yendluri > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 4:53 PM > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org > Subject: Re: Version attribute for WSDL > > Messing with the namespace URI (and effectively changing > namespace) for versioning seems undesirable to me. > I like to keep version a separate attribute distinct from the > namespace and actually I prefer that it be a +ve numerical. > A higher value representing a younger (subsequent) version than > the lower valued one. Also IMO we > must clearly define the semantics of this attribute lest we end up > creating another area of confusion. > The following semantics look good to me. > >The version attribute indicates a "minor" revision of the definition or >interface. Specifically, a "minor" revision indicates that a client using >a WSDL with a version attribute less-than the current value is expected >to continue to function. > > In essence I am for Tom's (2nd) proposal below except the approach > suggested in example 2. When an incompatible change is made, > it should be left up to the WSDL writer to decide how to change > the namespace URI rather the spec dictating it. > > I don't quite understand the issue with defaulting the version to > "1" if not set explicitly however... > > Regards, Prasad > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: Version attribute for WSDL > Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 18:49:15 -0500 (EST) > Resent-From: www-ws-desc@w3.org > Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:48:53 -0800 > From: Vambenepe, William N <vbp@hp.com> > To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, <paul.downey@bt.com>, > <tomj@macromedia.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org> > > >My mistake, I thought you were suggesting doing URI tricks inside a >"version" attribute that would be of type URI. Yes, I fully agree with >doing this in the URI that represents the namespace. This is what I >meant in a previous email: "maybe what we need instead is an optional >convention on how to build interface QNames that convey versioning >information. Whether that convention belongs in the WSDL spec is another >question..."" > >So +1 from me that this is the right approach. I am not sure this group >needs to specify that, but it's fine by me if many people want it in our >spec. > >William > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org >> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Vambenepe, William N >> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 12:41 PM >> To: David Orchard; paul.downey@bt.com; tomj@macromedia.com; >> www-ws-desc@w3.org >> Subject: RE: Version attribute for WSDL >> >> >> > I wonder if we could play some magic trick and say that the >> > minor version is a relative URI from the namespace name, and >> > then the "match" could be of the strings. A nice use of URIs >> > for comparison imo. >> >> Why not play that trick on the URI part of the QName of the interface? >> >> William >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org >> > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Orchard >> > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 12:13 PM >> > To: paul.downey@bt.com; tomj@macromedia.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org >> > Subject: RE: Version attribute for WSDL >> > >> > >> > Ah Paul, >> > >> > I had earlier thought about using URIs for the "minor" >> > version # and the problem of multiple nested versions and you >> > are probably right about the problem of increasing minor versions. >> > >> > Tell me though, is 3.3 compatible with 3.2.1.1? I would >> > assume they would have to be. >> > >> > I wonder if we could play some magic trick and say that the >> > minor version is a relative URI from the namespace name, and >> > then the "match" could be of the strings. A nice use of URIs >> > for comparison imo. >> > >> > Dave >> > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org >> > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On >> > > Behalf Of paul.downey@bt.com >> > > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 10:02 AM >> > > To: dorchard@bea.com; tomj@macromedia.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org >> > > Subject: RE: Version attribute for WSDL >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > I like this too, especially the defaulting on extension. >> > > >> > > My small concern is using the integer to indicate the relationship >> > > between versions precludes branches, unless we allowed a SCCS/RCS/CVS >> > > style numbering system, e.g: >> > > >> > > 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 >> > > | >> > > +-> 3.1 -> 3.2 -> 3.3 >> > > | >> > > +-> 3.2.1 >> > > | >> > > +-> 3.2.1.1 >> > > >> > > i imagined the proper W3C way would be to use a URI for the >> > > version and >> > > relate them using syllogisms ? >> > > >> > > Paul >> > > >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org >> > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of David Orchard >> > > Sent: 13 February 2004 17:47 >> > > To: 'Tom Jordahl'; www-ws-desc@w3.org >> > > Subject: RE: Version attribute for WSDL >> > > >> > > >> > > I like this as a strawman. And the idea of not inheriting the version >> > > attribute makes a certain sense too, as it requires the "extender" to make a >> > > conscious decision. Though defaulting to "1" does have the problem that the >> > > extender might not be compatible. If there were some way in the "extension" >> > > of knowing that the extensions could be ignored, then "1" makes sense. >> > > >> > > cheers, >> > > Dave >> > > >> > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org >> > > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Tom Jordahl >> > > > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 7:06 AM >> > > > To: 'www-ws-desc@w3.org' >> > > > Subject: RE: Version attribute for WSDL >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > I guess I understand the desire to have "real" versioning support in WSDL >> > > > 2.0. I do too. But my proposal came out of the F2F, where we had a long, >> > > > and I believe fruitless, discussion about all of this. >> > > > >> > > > I do not believe we can have a section in our specification about versioning >> > > > and say "if you want versioning, change the namespace". With a small >> > > > addition to the syntax, we can give users some help in managing change in >> > > > their web services. >> > > > >> > > > I am willing to apply semantics to the version attribute if this group >> > > > thinks that they can move forward in a productive way. How about these >> > > > changes as a straw man for discussion: >> > > > >> > > > - The version attribute is part of the infoset (a.k.a. the component model) >> > > > >> > > > - The version attribute has type xsd:positiveInteger >> > > > >> > > > - The version attribute has a default value of 1. >> > > > >> > > > - The version attribute indicates a "minor" revision of the definition or >> > > > interface. Specifically, a "minor" revision indicates that a client using >> > > > a WSDL with a version attribute less-than the current value is expected >> > > > to continue to function. >> > > > >> > > > - When an interface extends another interface, the version attribute of the >> > > > interface is NOT inherited - it must be explicitly set on the interface, >> > > > and if is not, the interface has the default version attribute (1). >> > > > >> > > > Example 1: Version 1 of my interface has two operations. I release a new >> > > > WSDL that adds a third operation, and change the version attribute to 2. >> > > > Clients who are using the previous version of the WSDL continue to function. >> > > > >> > > > Example 2: My WSDL has a purchase order type defined and a target namespace >> > > > of "http://example.org/myservice". I change my purchase order to include >> > > > several new elements and rename some of the old ones. Since this change >> > > > will break compatibility, I change the target namespace to >> > > > "http://example.org/myservice/v2". My service can now easily tell the >> > > > difference between clients that are using the original WSDL >> > > > and the new one. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > Tom Jordahl >> > > > Macromedia Server Development >> > > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2004 20:31:15 UTC