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. Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Senior Architect TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.comReceived 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