Re: [wsrp] Use of spec defined types in extensions

[Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>]

The "extra" namespace was
created to hold what we considered reusable types so that we could more
strongly reject reuse from the types namespace.

As to the original question, I think
it would be unwise for a v2 implementation to reuse a v1 type (confusion
when the other end supports both versions), but that this is not worth
a conformance statement/test case.

BTW: we need to think of a better "name"
for the extra namespace prior to publication ... perhaps wsrp-ext.

Rich

Richard Jacob <richard.jacob@de.ibm.com>

08/25/05 10:38 AM

To	Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@bea.com>
cc	wsrp <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject	Re: [wsrp] Use of spec defined types in extensions

where do we say that?
I thought we discussed explicitly that we want reuse of our structures
in
some cases.
NamedString was the famous example here.

Mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards,

        Richard Jacob
______________________________________________________
IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany
Dept.8288, WebSphere Portal Server Development
WSRP Team Lead & Technical Lead
WSRP Standardization
Phone: ++49 7031 16-3469  -  Fax: ++49 7031 16-4888
Email: mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com


                    
                     
                     
          
             Subbu Allamaraju    
                     
                   
             <subbu@bea.com>  
                     
                     
                    
                     
                     
       To 
             08/22/2005 04:17    
     wsrp <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>    
             PM        
                     
                     
    cc 
                    
                     
                     
          
                    
                     
                     
  Subject 
                    
                  [wsrp] Use
of spec defined types in 
                    
                  extensions
                     
   
                    
                     
                     
          
                    
                     
                     
          
                    
                     
                     
          
                    
                     
                     
          
                    
                     
                     
          
                    
                     
                     
          




In the v2 draft, we say that implementations should not use v2 types in
extensions. Does anyone see reasons to also exclude v1 types in v2
extensions?

Regards,

Subbu

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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