Re: [sca-bindings] binding.ws and WSDL extensibility -- new proposedwording

[Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>]

Folks,

Perhaps rather than try to give an exhaustive
list of the extensions, it would be best to use a 
catch-all phrase such as "the set
of WSDL extensions defined by the SCA specifications".
They are are normatively defined somewhere,
but trying to list them here could simply 
cause problems.

So my proposed wording goes like this:

-----
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 set of WSDL
extensions defined by the SCA specifications [list of references to SCA
specifications].

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. (ie the WSDL might contain extension elements

which cannot be supported by the SCA runtime).
-----

Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  
Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com

From:	Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
To:	OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:	02/12/2008 07:47
Subject:	[sca-bindings] 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
--

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

---

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU