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

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:  

From:
Anish Karmarkar <>

To:
OASIS Bindings <>

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