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 12:08:19 -0800
To: "Prasad Yendluri" <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <GEEIIPGIGJHOLHFLNCJAAENGCDAA.sandkuma@cisco.com>
Prasad,

I know that the word *contract* has other meanings and QoS is just one such
thing. :) So
Service Quality Binding is not broad enough.
Does Service Semantics Bindings make more sense to you?
I think it is important to have a separate *container* to hold some of the
meta information, and that is the intent.
sandeep


  -----Original Message-----
  From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Prasad Yendluri
  Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 12:01 PM
  To: Sandeep Kumar
  Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
  Subject: Re: Bindings



  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 15:08:52 GMT

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