- From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 10:56:42 -0700
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, "Yaron Y. Goland" <ygoland@bea.com>
On May 4, 2004, at 12:03 PM, Mark Baker wrote: > I wonder if an extension couldn't be defined to allow a WSDL document > to declare whether what its asserting is intended to be true for all > time, versus just true at this moment in time, at a very fine level of > granularity (per feature)? That would permit code generators to ignore > the "at this moment in time" assertions, thereby preventing them from > generating code which could break when that thing changes. I wonder at how useful that would be; predicting the stability of metadata (or entire representations, for that matter) is a tricky business. It would be more useful to see such descriptions as hints; i.e., the dynamic negotiation mechanisms still need to be honoured, but the static hints allow you to make informed decisions before you get the feedback (e.g., the error message that says "I don't support compression in requests"). I do agree that there's an issue regarding description and metadata lifecycles, but don't think they're specific to this particular aspect. This also highlights some areas of HTTP that are lacking, in terms of error reporting; e.g., AFAIK there's no machine-readable way to say "I don't support compressed requests". I'd much rather define these in a HTTP-specific way than in a SOAP-specific way; perhaps the HTTP errata-in-progress is a place to introduce such a mechanism. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2004 14:04:40 UTC