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

RE: issue: service type

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 07:50:15 -0700
Message-ID: <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC1078AA1E3@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>, "Matt Long" <mlong@phalanxsys.com>
Cc: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I agree. It is also useful to be able to know the type too. The type
could be
(a) Known a priori
(b) Retrieved by sending a well-known message to the URL
(c) Included along with the URL

In Cases (a) and (b), you have just the URL. In Case (b) you have an
extra round trip that Case (c) eliminates.

There are precedents for each of these in other network systems, so I'm
not surprised that there are folks that see value to each.

--Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 7:35 AM
To: Jacek Kopecky; Matt Long
Cc: 'WS-Desc WG (Public)'
Subject: RE: issue: service type


That sounds like a HUGE problem.  It would be horrible if one couldn't 
identify the service just by a URI.

At 04:49 PM 6/5/2002 +0200, Jacek Kopecky wrote:

>  Matt, one of the issues is that you cannot just pass a URL as a
>pointer to a service, you need the service QName, too. And the
>QName by itself is not sufficient either because you may not know
>where a WSDL definition of that QName is located.
>
>                    Jacek Kopecky
>
>                    Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
>
>
>
>On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Matt Long wrote:
>
>  >
>  > What issues(s) do multi-service WSDLs present?
>  >
>  >
>  > -Matt Long
>  > Phalanx Systems, LLC
>  >
>  > > -----Original Message-----
>  > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
>  > On
>  > > Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
>  > > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 2:47 PM
>  > > To: WS-Desc WG (Public)
>  > > Subject: Fw: issue: service type
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > 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.
>  > > >
>  >
>  >

-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 10:51:02 GMT

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