- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:34:19 -0700
- To: "Arthur Ryman" <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
This is a good answer to my concern. Thanks for thinking this through so clearly! Do you think we need to state in the spec that building a component model is a function of the WSDL provided, plus the set of extensions the processor understands, without mentioning the dreaded "processor" word? > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Arthur Ryman > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 5:00 AM > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org > Subject: Extensions and Import/Include > > > I've had further thoughts on the interaction between extensions and > the import/include mechanism. Jonathan asked if the WS-A extension > would violate my proposed restrictions. I don' t think is does because > of the recent "clarifications" about how extensions work. > > I had assumed that the presence of an extension was triggered by the > content of a document. This is wrong since we agreed that an extension > was in effect whether or not a document actually contained any markup > from it's namespace. For example, if you claim that a component model > conforms to the wsdlx extension then ALL operations have a {safety} > property whether or the wsdlx:safe attribute is present. > > Therefore it is fine for WS-A to add properties to components even if > there is no markup in those components (e.g. Interface components). > This doesn't violate the import/include restriction because you get > the same properties added whether or not a component is brought in via > import/include or is defined in the document. The extension is present > globally and uniformly throughout the component model. A processor can > therefore read (and optionally cache) each document exactly once and > then assemble them into the full component model instance. > > This implies that we can't just talk about component models. We have > to talk about extended component models, i.e. the core component model > plus a set of extensions. The presence of extensions is independent of > the document content and therefore we have to specify which extensions > are present when we consider the validity of a component model > instance. > > -- Arthur >
Received on Friday, 9 June 2006 18:35:24 UTC