RE: Optional Extensions

I see the value of both sides of the argument. From the service perspective, assurance of backward compatibility is desireable(non-required extension will not break its current clients); from the service users perspective, it maybe a good thing to be at least warned that some not-understandable optional extension is encountered.

In stead of saying that the processor MUST *ignore* the not-understandable optional extension, would it be better to say that the process MUST NOT fault? 

Best Regards,

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Prasad Yendluri
Sent: Tuesday, Jan 27, 2004 02:15 PM
To: Glen Daniels
Cc: Web Services Description
Subject: Re: Optional Extensions

Glen Daniels wrote:

>I'm sorry, but I don't understand this whole "may ignore them" business.
>What exactly is a processor going to do with an extension it doesn't
>understand?  IMHO, it has to ignore them unless they are marked as
>required, in which case it fails. 
It *can* give an option to a user of the tool to decide if it should go 
ahead ignoring the extensions it did not understand even if they are 
optional extensions or minimally issue a warning message (as a 
configurable option say). Blindly ignoring and staying silent on the 
user is the worst thing a tool can do to a user. I may want to build a 
client that understands certain optional extensions I need to use. If 
the tool does not handle some of the extensions, I as a programmer may 
like to have an option to override and plug in my code as needed or at 
least be notified.

That way I can decide to buy tool-A that does not understand all the 
extensions vs Tool-B that does. May be some tool builders :-D would not 
like that.

Just putting forth a pragmatic perspective for discussion. Grab some 
cool-aid will you!!!

> I think this is common sense, but it
>wouldn't hurt to specify it either.
Common sense tells me not to blow my top off silly also :)


Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2004 13:19:08 UTC