Re: [wsrm] adding extensibility to the empy type

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

Doug Bunting wrote:

> Tom,
>
> Yes, this would provide better extensibility.  The immediate question 
> is where we need to allow such extensibility?  I doubt every element 
> needs this support though it is definitely necessary for more than 
> just our top-level SOAP headers.  I see little use for this in (for 
> example), the MessageId and SequenceNum elements but they can be 
> defined easily without relying on EmptyType.
>
> To go a bit further, I would define three general element types for 
> use throughout the schema, EmptyType, ExtensibleType and HeaderType 
> (or something similar), and use those as appropriate.  EmptyType 
> should be the type of our simplest "pseudo Boolean" elements and never 
> extended. HeaderType would be the base for our four SOAP header 
> elements. ExtensibleType would be the base of all other elements which 
> are extensible (it could also be the base for HeaderType); elements 
> which are not extensible or empty would be defined without an explicit 
> base type. 

The latest proposed schema I posted has two types, headerBaseType and 
extensibleBaseType.

There is no base type for simple types in this schema.

Tom Rutt

>
>
> Less importantly and more generally (about the schema as a whole and a 
> long standing question I have forgotten to ask), this model puts all 
> extension content (new elements) at the beginning of the WSRM 
> elements.  This is counter-intuitive though I realise it comes from 
> the use of schema type extensions rather than consistent placement of 
> xsd:any at the end of every "interesting" complex type.  For example, 
> an extended MessageHeader would (today) appear as:
>
>   <wsrm:MessageHeader soap:mustUnderstand="1">
>     <foo:bar letsGoToTheBar="yeah" />
>     <wsrm:MessageId ... />
>     <wsrm:ExpiryTime ... />
>     <wsrm:ReplyPattern ... />
>   </wsrm:MessageHeader>
>
> rather than something that appears extended:
>
>   <wsrm:MessageHeader soap:mustUnderstand="1">
>     <wsrm:MessageId ... />
>     <wsrm:ExpiryTime ... />
>     <wsrm:ReplyPattern ... />
>     <foo:bar letsGoToTheBar="yeah" />
>   </wsrm:MessageHeader>
>
> Should we change our choice here?
>
> This also reminds me of another schema nit: Why is the existing 
> extensible type (the one with the required soap:mustUnderstand) named 
> wsrm:RmBaseType, I thought we nuked all of the "Rm" prefixes?  I 
> purposefully chose HeaderType above to work around this complaint.
>
> thanx,
>     doug
>
> On 20-Feb-04 12:09, Tom Rutt wrote:
>
>> Would the following change to the empy type provide better 
>> extensibility for the protocol?
>>
>>   <xsd:complexType name="EmptyType">
>>        <xsd:sequence>
>>            <xsd:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" 
>> minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
>>        </xsd:sequence>
>>        <xsd:anyAttribute namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/>
>>    </xsd:complexType>
>>
>> The above prosal adds extensible attributes and elements , without 
>> the soap must understand attribute which is there for header elements.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster 
> of the OASIS TC), go to 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php. 
>
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt		email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133