RE: [ws-caf] WS-Context Issue?

["Tony Fletcher" <tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com>]

Dear Kevin,

I may be being dense here, but also you may have missed my point.  I can see
how statusEnumerationType is constructed, it is how it is used that I can
not see at present.  One might expect it to be used in constructing the
status element / message but it does not seem to be.  That is why I then
wondered - perhaps it is not used in Context but imported into CF and used
there.  Well it is but that chain runs out as well.  In CF it is as the
basis of a (CF) statusEnumerationType (without change that seems a bit
pointless to me) but that type does not appear to be used in CF.  Can you
tell me how these types are used in both schema?  (So it seems to me as I
said before that either statusEnumerationType is redundant in both schema or
something is missing from the schema.)

Best Regards     Tony
A M Fletcher
Tel: +44 (0) 1473 729537   Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219
 tony.fletcher@choreology.com    amfletcher@iee.org       (also
tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com)
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Conner [mailto:Kevin.Conner@arjuna.com] 
Sent: 26 May 2005 09:28
To: Tony Fletcher
Cc: WS-CAF
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] WS-Context Issue?


Hiya Tony.

Tony Fletcher wrote:
> However this type does not seem to be used anywhere.  Is it now 
> redundant or how is it used?  Does something need to be added to the 
> schema to link it in?

I sent an email to the list a couple of weeks ago explaining its purpose, it
is connected with extending an enumerated value.  This was the most
expeditious solution and the least controversial (at least I thought so :-))
and is certainly not cast in stone.

There are only three mechanisms of achieving this, as far as I am aware.  By
convention (this way), by element substitution or by including schema
instance information.

> The type is imported into the CF schema where it is used as a simple 
> restriction base for a CF  'StatusEnumerationType' ( with no actual 
> restriction - why not extension?), but this type does not appear to be 
> used in CF.  Same questions is it now redundant or how is it used?  
> Does something need to be added to the schema to link it in?

The reason it is in CF is purely an architectural decision, allowing
referencing specifications to extend that type instead of incorporating the
context one.  Again, this is not cast in stone.

> Note that the 'status' element (/message) is based on the 
> 'statusType'. These schema issues may need to be subservient to the 
> more general discussion about 'status'.

I think there are still a few issues to be decided in this area, including
the potential removal of the status enumeration from context or even whether
to allow extension of status enumerations.  The mechanism used for extending
status will certainly change to comply with the other decisions.

	Kev

-- 
Kevin Conner
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.