W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2002

Re: Fw: issue: service type

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 17:00:31 +0200 (CEST)
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
cc: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0206051649230.982-100000@mail.idoox.com>

 Sanjiva,
 re issue-service-type: what kind of abstract analogue of a
service do you imagine? I believe a WSDL service should only
contain ports for bindings of a single portType. If multiple such
services need to be grouped, they should either be in one (named)  
WSDL definitions document, or we should add a serviceGroup
concept. The decision on this may affect issue-multiple-services.
 As for "anyone with opinions or can I resolve it myself?" - it 
works this way: there must be a proposal for resolution, which 
you myself can send in. There can be a discussion before the 
proposal, but I believe that's optional. There should be 
discussion after the proposal. And, finally, the WG as a whole 
must decide that the issue is resolved with the proposal (or 
other one). 
 Re issue-multiple-services: I believe we need not restrict one 
WSDL file to a single service, but I don't think we must keep the 
status quo, either. If the policy is "don't change what's not 
broken" I wouldn't change the status quo.
 If, on the other hand, we agree that this should be changed, I
would propose that the <definitions> element's attribute 'name'
be removed because it serves no useful purpose and its meaning
would be even more confusing if at most one <service> could be in 
one <definitions> element.
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

 > 
 > I posted this a while back, but there was literally no discussion 
 > that I can recall. Is this issue so boring??
 > 
 > Also related is the following:
 >     <issue id="issue-multiple-services">
 >       <head>Should a single WSDL file only define one service?</head>
 >       WSDL 1.1 suppports having multiple services in a single WSDL
 >       file. This has caused confusion amongst users.
 >       <source>Sanjiva Weerawarana</source>
 >     </issue>
 > 
 > Anyone with opinions or can I resolve it myself? ;-)
 > 
 > Sanjiva.
 > 
 > ----- Original Message ----- 
 > From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
 > To: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
 > Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 6:29 AM
 > Subject: issue: service type
 > 
 > 
 > > I would like to open discussion on the following issue:
 > > 
 > > <issue id="issue-service-type">
 > >   <head>Should we have an abstract view of a service?</head>
 > >   WSDL defines a service as a collection of ports, but there is no
 > >   abstract analog. 
 > >   <source>Sanjiva Weerawarana</source>
 > > </issue>
 > > 
 > > 
 > > Sanjiva.
 > > 
 > 
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2002 11:00:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:20 GMT