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

Re: issue-intra-port-relationship (was ..Freshly updated draft of part1 (was: Re: Overloading [was RE: Minutes, 27 June 2002 Web Service Description Telcon]))

From: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:38:22 -0700
Message-ID: <3D1CAD1E.69CB7285@webmethods.com>
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
CC: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Hi Sanjiva (et al),

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

> I have also closed the following issue:
>
>     <issue id="issue-intra-port-relationship" status="closed">
>       <head>Should intra-port relationships be allowed?</head>
>       <source>Prasad Yendluri</source>
>       <p>The above restrictions seems to be unnecessary. What is the
>       justification?</p>
>       <resolution><p>Decided to retain this restriction as no one could
>       figure out what one would want with having this feature. See
>       Wed PM minutes for June '02 F2F.</p></resolution>
>     </issue>

Sorry I could not be at the F2F but, here is my two cents on this. Putting a
restriction without a justification seems unreasonable to me. We already have
several areas of confusing text in the spec that simply put restrictions w/o
offering any explanation (e.g. only one part in message when 'type' AII is used;
'type' AII must be used in messages at abstract if SOAP binding 'use' is
'encoded' etc.).

Why put restriction and tie the hands when we can't think of a reason for
putting restriction? I offer couple of examples:

   * Say I have a service that offers query and search operations that are
     hosted on their own ports in the service. Query might need to invoke the
     search to accomplish its purpose sometime (or vice versa). Granted they can
     be put in separate services but if the provider feels they are closely
     related and really belong together why force one to do so?
   * Say we have a service that offers both higher level abstraction and
     lower-level fine-granular services (e.g. MAPI and IMAP) on separate ports
     and the MAPI operations  may need to invoke operations in IMAP port to
     accomplish its purpose. So the MAP port would want to "communicate" with
     the IMAP port. Again they can be in separate services and things would work
     fine. But these are just examples and why should the spec put a restriction
     and why not make the designers make these decisions, unless we see some bad
     side effects in permitting this?

It seems putting restrictions arbitrarily without justifying them is undesirable
IMHO.

"Ports within a service have the following relationship:

   *        None of the ports communicate with each other..." ?

My two cents..

Regards, Prasad
Received on Friday, 28 June 2002 14:34:48 GMT

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