[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: binding.ws and WSDL extensibility -- new proposed wording
On today's extended call we decided to change the wordings of section 2.6 Support for WSDL extensibility to address Dave's concern. Specifically, we decide to say something along the lines of: (1) wsdl allows extension, go look at what the rules are in the wsdl spec, (2) we define the following extension and what the MUST-ness for that is I took an action to provide text for the change. For you reference currently section 2.6 says: ----- 2.6 Support for WSDL extensibility When a Web Service binding is specified using the @wsdlElement attribute, the details of the binding are specified by the WSDL element referenced by the value of the attribute. WSDL elements allow for extensibility via elements as well as attribute. The Web Service binding allows the use of such extensibility in WSDL. Note that as a consequence of this, when using this form of Web Service binding, it is not possible to determine whether the binding is supported by the SCA runtime without parsing the referenced WSDL element and its dependent elements. ----- I would like to propose that we say the following in section 2.6: ----- 2.6 Support for WSDL extensibility When a Web Service binding is specified using the @wsdlElement attribute, the details of the binding are specified by the WSDL element referenced by the value of the attribute. Per the WSDL specification, WSDL elements allow for extensibility via elements as well as attributes, and it specifies rules for processing such elements. The Web Service binding does not constrain the use of such extensibility in WSDL and relies on the rules specified in the WSDL specification for processing such extended elements. This binding requires that the SCA runtime MUST support the WSDL extensions [include-a-list-of-extensions] defined at [include-a-list-of-refs]. Note that as a consequence of this, when using this form of Web Service binding, it is not possible to determine whether the binding is supported by the SCA runtime without parsing the referenced WSDL element and its dependent elements. ----- I have not included the list of extensions (and their references) since at this point it is very likely going to change. Currently we have extensions for intents and conversation. It is possible that the conversational extension may be removed and a new extension for callback may be added. Therefore this is a TBD. But I'm suggesting via this proposal that all the extensions that are defined in SCA (assembly) be required. Comments? -Anish --
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]