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

RE: Bindings

From: Sandeep Kumar <sandkuma@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:25:18 -0800
To: "Prasad Yendluri" <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <GEEIIPGIGJHOLHFLNCJACENECDAA.sandkuma@cisco.com>
Prasad,

Isn't a client of a SP, agreeing to a published QoS for an access point, for
instance?
Sandeep

-----Original Message-----
From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@webmethods.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 11:23 AM
To: Sandeep Kumar
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Re: Bindings


Sandeep (et al),

WSDL 1.1 in its current form is designed to be a language used by the
provider
of the service to unilaterally describe the service (interfaces,  bindings,
access-points etc.).  I can see extending this to accommodate specification
of
different levels of QoS (say at different access points) by the provider.
However,  "Service Contract Binding"  implies to me a "contract/agreement
between two are more parties".

Regards,

Prasad Yendluri
---------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Architect, ATG; webMethods Inc.,
432 Lakeside Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3793, USA
Tel: (408) 962-5226 mailto: pyendluri@webmethods.com
---------------------------------------------------------------

Sandeep Kumar wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In today's meeting, we had a discussion on *bindings* and we agreed upon,
> *InterfaceBinding*. I like that as well.
>
> We were also discussing about a broader notion of binding, such QoS etc.,
> and it was felt that it is one of the *significant* features that we can
add
> to WSDL 1.1.
>
> I wonder if Service Contract Binding would be a better term or an
"extension
> point" for such meta-level concepts.
>
> Thanks,
> Sandeep Kumar
> Cisco Systems
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2002 14:25:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:19 GMT