Re: Version attribute for WSDL

William,

>Prasad, I don't see what the problem is with creating a new namespace URI by using a >previous namespace URI as a base.

There is no issue with creating a new URI that represents a version with 
the namespace URI as the base. However if you are asking that we make 
that the new namespace URI (@targetNamespace on the definitions element) 
of the versioned WSDL effectively using the namespace attribute to 
version,  I do see a problem. I was not sure however if  that is what 
you are proposing..

Regards, Prasad

> -----Original Message----- 
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org on behalf of Vambenepe, William N 
> Sent: Thu 2/19/2004 11:28 AM 
> To: Prasad Yendluri; www-ws-desc@w3.org 
> Cc: 
> Subject: RE: Version attribute for WSDL
> 
> 
> David, in your proposal, you suggest to create a URI based on the namespace URI of the "older" interface. That sounds good, but where does this URI go? First I assumed you meant it goes in an attribute of type anyURI that we would add to interface, and I replied to you that this URI should go as the namespace URI for the "newer" interface instead. Then I re-read your text and I thought maybe this is what you meant all along. Now I am confused again. Can you please clarify where in the WSDL you would put the "versioned" URI? As the namespace of the "newer" interface or not.
>  
> Prasad, I don't see what the problem is with creating a new namespace URI by using a previous namespace URI as a base.
>  
> William
>  
>
>  -----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 5:31 PM
>  To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
>  Subject: Re: Version attribute for WSDL
>  
>  
>
>
>  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> <mailto:vbp@hp.com>  
>To:  David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com> <mailto:dorchard@bea.com> , <paul.downey@bt.com> <mailto:paul.downey@bt.com> , <tomj@macromedia.com> <mailto:tomj@macromedia.com> , <www-ws-desc@w3.org> <mailto: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" <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" <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 Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:20:48 UTC