Alexis, JSDL has shown that extensions work fine even (sigh) with XML namespaces, without breaking interop. Leaving extension points with xsd:any with namespace #other and lax content allows for easy interop by just ignoring vendor-specific stuff. -Alexander Am 14.05.2009 um 21:01 schrieb Alexis Richardson <alexis.richardson@gmail.com
:
Sam,
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net> wrote:
Extensibility is the enemy of interoperability. We should XML for Integration at the edge. NOT for the interop core.
Rubbish - we need extensibility and there is no "edge"
Thanks Sam.
I am not arguing against extensions, I am arguing that dealing with them needs to be done so as to not make it easy to break interop.
The reason that extensibility is the enemy of interoperability is that if two users extend the core protocol then:
1. If they do not interoperate then this is really hard to debug without appealing to the users who made them. "Really hard" meaning "impractical to the point of hampering adoption".
2. If they appear to interoperate then we still cannot tell if they are actually interoperating because the semantics of their extensions may not be the same.
But, users want extensions. The solution to this problem is to allow extensions but not require them to be in the core protocol. Not being in the core protocol, means being on the 'edge', which is an appropriate term for 'not core' or 'at the edge of the network' to be more specific.
Does TCP have extensions? No. (Or if it does people apparently don't use them because it would break interop)
Does WS-* have extensions? Yes.
Please - anyone - tell me what is wrong with the above argument.
Sam, I liked Gary's diagrams - perhaps you did too which suggests some common ground or that we are arguing at cross purposes?
alexis _______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg