RE: Extending the functionality of an existing Web Service

There's a difference between interface versioning and service/endpoint
versioning.  It seems that interface versioning is possible with
inheritance - though I still have finish some cycles on that - but there are
more things to a service than the interface.   For example: bindings,
addresses, lists of operations.

Now pardon my ignorance, but I share Paul's curiousity as to the ways that
services and service descriptions are versioned.  I sadly didn't see
anything in the primer or use cases on this either.

What would be great is to show what aspects of a service can evolve in
compatible ways, and what the before/after wsdl/messages look like.  To be
honest, I'd almost volunteer to try writing it for the primer but I'm soo
far behind the discussion I'm afraid I'd end up costing the group more time
rather than saving it.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: []On
> Behalf Of Jean-Jacques Moreau
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 8:26 AM
> To:
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Extending the functionality of an existing Web Service
> I personally read this as hinting at... inheritance! I'd be fined
> with supporting versioning as well; but don't we get this with
> URIs already?
> Jean-Jacques.
> wrote:
> > In the Interface Description section of the charter there
> is the following:
> >
> >  Developers are likely to want to extend the functionality
> of an existing
> >  Web service.  The Working Group will look into extending
> interface descriptions
> >  in a decentralized fashion, i.e. without priori agreement
> with the original
> >  interface designers.
> >
> > We read this as WSDL 2.0 providing a mechanism for
> versioning a Web Service,
> > at least an outline how to add contents of a message
> without breaking existing
> > interactions.
> >
> > There appears to be nothing in the requirements relating to
> how to version a
> > Web Service beyond being able to identify versions of
> services and descriptions.
> >
> > Has this issue been lost, or is our reading of the charter
> incorrect ?
> >
> > Paul
> >

Received on Thursday, 8 January 2004 17:32:03 UTC