Re: [wsrm] New Issue: Is wsrm extensible?

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

iwasa wrote:
> In principle, I think we can follow the same
> position that SOAP has. SOAP is considered
> to be extended. And I think there is possibility
> this spec to be extended, so we do not have
> to preclude those extensibility.
> 
> Iwasa

Do we want to put extensibility elements in the Schema (i.e. sequence of
 ANY) to allow adding additional elements to the complex header types later?

Tom Rutt
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Scott Werden" <scottw@wrq.com>
> To: <wsrm@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 3:28 AM
> Subject: [wsrm] New Issue: Is wsrm extensible?
> 
> 
> 
>>Is it a requirement (or not) that WSRM be extensible?
>>
>>If we think this is pretty much a stand-alone spec, extensibility is
>>probably not important, but if we think variations will emerge in the
> 
> future
> 
>>(e.g., a WS-ReliabilityPolicy), then we should build in extensibility.
> 
> This
> 
>>is important for how the schema is designed.
>>
>>Scott Werden
>>
>>You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
> 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php
> 
> 
> 
> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php
> 


-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt		email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133