- From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:13:00 -0400
- To: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
- Cc: dorchard@bea.com, www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 18:41:16 -0400 Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com> wrote: > I'm not sure I understand what you think is "absurd" here. We are Creating a feature which, in toto, reads "This feature, identified by the URI http://www.example.org/alkahest/, fulfills the requirement of being a required extension." And this *will* happen, because in the case under discussion (which we shouldn't be spending time on now, since it's already been voted on, and I lost), at least two companies that I know of will document how to sidestep the Stupid Requirement. Since all that a processor can tell, looking at the thing, is that it contains or does not contain an extension which is marked wsdl:required, that's all that can be tested. If that's missing, the processor can say "missing required extension," but can't identify the extension that's required. Something is required to be required. We encounter a great many companies who want to describe existing legacy services, which may not, in the first pass of modernization, actually use a reasonable dispatch mechanism. They have to put *something* there. So they will. *shrug* Clearly, that's an optional extension. Only it isn't, it's required. What's absurd is for the Description language to make a Prescription for best practice. A recommendation, fine. A requirement? Just means less interop. Why bother defining the algorithm you use to dispatch, when you can just plug in Meaningless Feature to fulfill Stupid Requirement? dadadadadadadadadadadadadadadadadadadadadadadadadadada dada Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Senior Architect TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2004 11:13:36 UTC