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

RE: issue: service type

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 12:07:34 -0700
Message-ID: <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC107B0A357@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

ryman@ca.ibm.com [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com] wrote:
>I think it's ok for a WSDL document to have more than one <service>
>elements.

+1

>However, I think it is confusing to have a <service> implement
>semantically different <port>s. I think the concept of a service would
have
>greater cohesion if the multiple ports were simply different ways to
access
>the same underlying service. Each port would be an alternate way,
differing
>perhaps in just the protocol used. That way the client can select any
port
>it understands and get the same result. The current WSDL forces you to
>define different portTypes because of problems in the binding
definitions
>(e.g. one for SOAP/HTTP, one for HTTP POST). If this is fixed, then the
>rule should be that all ports in a service implement the same portType.
Or
>if the serviceType proposal is accepted, then all ports in a service
>implement the same serviceType (here I assume the portTypes in a
>serviceType really define different sets of operations, i.e. they are
not
>just to accomodate different protocols).

If we retain the WSDL 1.1 rule about multiple ports being alternates to
the same underlying state, how would we support the two tuner use case?
From [1]: "When building a UPnP TV device, a vendor may wish to include
two analog TV tuners to support a feature like picture-in-picture."
Assuming you'd model a tuner as a port, the two ports would need to be
recognized as semantically different ports.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Apr/0205.html
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 15:07:36 GMT

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