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

Re: Bindings

From: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 12:01:17 -0800
Message-ID: <3C9A3C0D.C4043D35@webmethods.com>
To: Sandeep Kumar <sandkuma@cisco.com>
CC: www-ws-desc@w3.org


Sandeep Kumar wrote:

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

Good point. However the client agrees to (has no choice but to:) use the entire
service as provided by the provider not just the QoS aspects. It seems
inconsistent to me to single this out to be "Service Contract Binding". If the
target really is QoS aspects, is Service Quality Binding a better choice? When
it comes down to it, it is just a name but the "contract" part bothered me
enough to raise a flag.  Not a big deal..

Regards, Prasad


> -----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 14:58:33 GMT

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