Re: Minority objection to features and properties

+1.
 
SAP  objects to the inclusion of feature and property components in WSDL2.0 specification, too.  

Best Regards,
Kevin Liu,  SAP
  

From: Martin Gudgin < <mailto:mgudgin@microsoft.com?Subject=Re:%20Minority%20objection%20to%20features%20and%20properties&In-Reply-To=> &References=">mgudgin@microsoft.com> 
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 08:06:59 -0700
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633802DC85F3@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> 
To: < <mailto:www-ws-desc@w3.org?Subject=Re:%20Minority%20objection%20to%20features%20and%20properties&In-Reply-To=> &References=">www-ws-desc@w3.org> 
Cc: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" < <mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com?Subject=Re:%20Minority%20objection%20to%20features%20and%20properties&In-Reply-To=> &References=">sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "Jeffrey Schlimmer" < <mailto:jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com?Subject=Re:%20Minority%20objection%20to%20features%20and%20properties&In-Reply-To=> &References=">jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com> 

start

The WSDL 2.0 Part 1 Last Call Working Draft[1] contains definitions for

Feature components[2] and Property component[3], two related constructs.

IBM Corp. and Microsoft Corp. object to their inclusion in WSDL 2.0

specification for several reasons;



1.	They significantly exceed the scope of the input specification

WSDL 1.1[4].

2.	They overlap entirely with other specifications currently

external to the W3C[5,6,7]

3. 	Features and properties overlap substantially with XML-based

extensibility mechanisms, making them redundant and significantly

complicating the language.

4. 	We believe features and properties will prove to be confusing to

WSDL users and will often be misused or unused.

5. 	XML-based extensibility is backward compatible with WSDL 1.1,

which has extension points but no features or properties.  Thus spec

authors will have to write different extension mechanisms for WSDL 1.1

and for WSDL 2.0 in order to take advantage of features and properties.

6. 	There is little evidence that extension authors will use them

instead of XML-based extensibility.  There is abundant evidence that

extension authors will use XML-based extensibility instead.



Regards



Martin Gudgin, Microsoft Corp.

Sanjiva Weerawarana, IBM Corp.



[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20 <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20> 

[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20#Feature <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20#Feature> 

[3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20#Property <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20#Property> 

[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-wsdl-20010315 <http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-wsdl-20010315> 

[5]

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnglobspec/html/ws-policy.asp <http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnglobspec/html/ws-policy.asp> 

[6]

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnglobspec/html/ws-policyasserti <http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnglobspec/html/ws-policyasserti> 

ons.asp

[7]

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnglobspec/html/ws-policyattachm <http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnglobspec/html/ws-policyattachm> 

ent.asp