I could live with the weasel-wording clarification.
Cheers,
Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email:
blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html
phone: +1 508 377 9295
Rich Salz <> wrote on 09/20/2005 03:21:15 PM:
> > * addition of new operations within a WSDL portType or binding (along
with
> > the corresponding schema, message and part definitions)
>
> The others examples seem okay to me, as they're effectively
> "subclassing" the current implementation -- the revisions wouldn't
> invalidate extant implementations. But I'm much less comfortable with
> this item. For example, a new operation could be defined that
> significantly changes the semantics, such as the ability to "withdraw"
> unacked messages.
>
> I think one of the following changes must be made (in my decreasing
> order of preference):
> Add weasel-wording like "new operations that don't affect the
> semantics of operations already defined."
> Remove this item
> Define a distinguished "notImplemented" SOAP fault code.
> Add a "what operations do you support" operation.
>
> --
> Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
> DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
> XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
