[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp] ExtensionDescription
My comments which of these constitute extensibility. Rich Thompson wrote: > > Could you provide a definition for a "pure" extension of the protocol? > > I would particularly like to see how it applies to: > - Defining a new value and related semantics which extend the mode > portion of the protocol Yes, we fine an extensibility model. > - Defining a new type and related semantics which extend the eventing > portion of the protocol Not related to extensibility. We define ways to carry arbitrary payload, but that is not the same as an extension point. > - Defining a new type and related semantics which extend the ClientData > portion of the protocol Same as previous. Regards, Subbu > I see all three of these as places where we built extensibility into the > protocol, presumably because we expected implementations to leverage > such extensibility. > > Rich > > > > *"Andre Kramer" <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com>* > > 08/22/05 12:55 PM > > > To > Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "wsrp" <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org> > cc > > Subject > RE: [wsrp] ExtensionDescription > > > > > > > > > I’m opposed to any description of a pure extension in the protocol - > even transfers of description (which would not be very useful, unless > backed up by some real description and agreement). > > Regards, > Andre > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com] * > Sent:* 22 August 2005 17:44* > To:* wsrp* > Subject:* RE: [wsrp] ExtensionDescription > > > Andre Kramer wrote: > > My fundamental concerns are totally with regards to the definition of > extensions that > > are outside the scope of WSRP. These, as I understand it, are to be > carried in <extensions> > > elements containing an “any” value and for reason of future evolution > and extensibility should > > be left open and not described in our protocol IMHO. > > As far as I know, no one has proposed describing extensions within the > protocol. What has > been proposed is providing an in-band means for transferring a > description of an extension. > > Rich > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To > unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in > OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To > unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in > OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]