W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > January 2005

Re: Proposal for Simplifications to the Component Model

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:24:57 -0500
To: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-Id: <20050127112457.15e48463.alewis@tibco.com>

I'm going to have to take some time and look at this carefully, but one
item simply leaps out:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 03:11:56 -0500
Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> 3. Finally, for this to work, we should only permit extension elements
> and  attributes in the top level elements: interface, binding, and
> service.  This means they are disallowed as children of the root
> description  element.

This is a *big* hit to the extensibility model, and potentially disrupts
the work of the folk who are building on top of WSDL, such as BPEL and
WS-Choreo.  I believe that I've seen at least a couple additional
languages defined as extensions to WSDL at the root level.

The servicegroup extension is disallowed, and any similar
unifying/correlating extension is as well (unless you take the
less-comprehensible path of sticking this stuff inside the bits that
they are supposedly related to in some fashion).

No, no, no.  This is a *major* change to the extensibility model.

> One other pleasant consequence of this rule is that we can have a 
> deterministic schema that enforces the order of the top level
> elements,  i.e.:
> description =
>         (import | include) *
>         types ?
>         (interface | binding | service) *

That's rather nice, but it's not sufficient, in my view, to trump the
breakage it causes for BPEL and the like.

Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2005 16:25:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:46 UTC