OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrp message

[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]