Re: Do <import> and <include> support extensibility elements?

Jack,

There is no requirement that an extension element directly affect the 
component model. Some extension elements could just affect how the 
component model is created, e.g. like <import> and <include> do already.

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca



Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
12/06/2005 07:04 AM

To
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
cc
Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject
Re: Do <import> and <include> support extensibility elements?







Hi, 

I initially thought extensibility of import and include doesn't make
much sense, but how about the following use cases?

1) adding alternative locations (like "this public WSDL, available at
w3.org/..., is also cached in our intranet repository at
server.local/...)
2) adding credentials information for retrieving the imported or
included WSDL

It isn't exactly greatly convincing, but extension elements are one
natural solution for these uses.

On the other hand we would have to say something about how extensions on
import and include are handled, wouldn't we? I don't think we say
something about that, and since include and import are not components,
it might introduce a kinda hairy distinction between extensions on
components and extensions on include and import elements.

I guess I can go either way. 8-)

Jacek

On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 16:01 -0500, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> 
> Amy, 
> 
> Allowing extension would not fuzz up the component model since there
> are no components for <include> or <import>. The extension elements
> could therefore not be child components. They could be used for other
> purposes. e.g we allow child <documentation> elements. Maybe someone
> will find another use for child elements. 
> 
> I also can't think of any convincing purpose for the extension
> elements, but the general design point of WSDL 2.0 is to allow
> extension virtually everywhere. 
> 
> Arthur Ryman,
> IBM Software Group, Rational Division
> 
> blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
> phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
> assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
> fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
> mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca 
> 
> 
> Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com> 
> Sent by:
> www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> 
> 12/05/2005 12:25 PM 
> 
> 
>                To
> Arthur
> Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA 
>                cc
> woden-dev@ws.apache.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org 
>           Subject
> Re: Do <import>
> and <include>
> support
> extensibility
> elements?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have an opinion.  FWIW.  :-)
> 
> import and include should *not* permit extensibility elements.  It
> fuzzes up the component model, and serves no purpose that I can think
> of.
> 
> Jonathan, I think this is CR1 (even before CR!).
> 
> Amy!
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:11:32 -0500
> Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> >John,
> >
> >You're right. The schema contradicts the spec. I'd don't see a lot of
> >use for allowing extensibility elements in the <include> and
> ><import>elements since they do not map to WSDL components. However,
> in
> >the spirit of extensibility and consistency, I supposed we should
> >allow it, in which case the schema needs to be corrected. Do you have
> >an opinion either way?
> >
> >Arthur Ryman,
> >IBM Software Group, Rational Division
> >
> >blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
> >phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
> >assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
> >fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
> >mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca
> >
> >
> >
> >"John Kaputin (gmail)" <jakaputin@gmail.com> 
> >Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> >12/04/2005 02:40 PM
> >
> >To
> >www-ws-desc@w3.org
> >cc
> >woden-dev@ws.apache.org, kaputin@uk.ibm.com
> >Subject
> >Do <import> and <include> support extensibility elements?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >I'd like to clarify which WSDL elements support extensibility
> >elements. 
> >
> >Part 1, section 6.1 Element based Extensibility states:
> >WSDL 2.0 allows namespace-qualified element information items whose 
> >[namespace name] is NOT "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl" to appear
> >among the [children] of specific element information items whose
> >[namespace name] is "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl".
> >
> >The word 'specific' suggests some WSDL elements do not support 
> >extensibility elements. This is backed up by the WSDL 2.0 schema at 
> >http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/wsdl20.xsd which indicates that all
> >WSDL 2.0 elements except <import> and <include> support extensibility
> >elements.
> >
> >However, in Part 1 all of the sections that describe the xml 
> >representation for each WSDL element state that the [children] of the
> >WSDL element may contain:
> >Zero or more namespace-qualified element information items whose 
> >[namespace name] is NOT "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl"
> >
> >i.e. this text applies to <include> and <import> too, in sections 4.1
> >and 4.2, which seems to contradict the schema.
> >
> >Is this correct? Can <include> and <import> have extensibility
> >elements?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >John Kaputin.
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Amelia A. Lewis
> Senior Architect
> TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
> alewis@tibco.com
> 
>