W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > April 2003

RE: There is no spoon Neo

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:00:26 -0700
Message-ID: <EDDE2977F3D216428E903370E3EBDDC9081192@MAIL01.stc.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

I never liked the current definition of "service" in WSDL because it can aggregate a bunch of ports that use different portTypes/interfaces and does not correspond to what in my mind a Web service looks like: a well defined interface with possibly multiple different bindings. 

So I support your proposal.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 8:33 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: There is no spoon Neo
> "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com> writes:
> >
> > This problem is exactly why I wanted the WSD group to 
> change some of the
> > definitions.  I suggested endpoint -> web service and service -> web
> service
> > collection.  So a web service is an individual endpoint 
> identified by a
> URI,
> > ie a Web service=Resource.  Now we've got this wierd 
> situation where a web
> > service is this collection of resources, so how do we say what a web
> service
> > is without getting abstract?
> There is currently a proposal in front of the WSDL WG (by me) to
> restrict a <service> to a single interface (aka portType) and to
> say that all <port>s within that service MUST implement precisely
> that portType.
> That means that a single service is defined as something that
> provides some function (as defined by that interface) and available
> on one or more ports (or endpoints). The service is still uniquely
> identified by the QName of the <service> element, which is kinda
> like a virtual "resource."
> Does that help? If so please help push that position! ;-)
> Sanjiva.
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 18:00:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:06 UTC