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

Re: Should a Service Implement a Single PortType?

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 10:13:46 +0600
Message-ID: <06e701c1d933$a42d5b80$c267b809@watson.ibm.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
I disagree that a service should be restricted to a single
portType. There are lots of services which are naturally
best represented by multiple interfaces (portTypes)- having
a description language that cannot describe those naturally
is broken IMO. If we restrict to multiple portTypes, why
not go all the way down to one operation? After all, we can
do everything with just that too .. ;-).

Jacek, you make a point below about an abstract analog of
a service that I personally like:

>  If, on the other hand, we really want to group multiple
> interfaces into one, the logical "one" should be called something
> like serviceGroup or something.

I use the term "serviceType" for this- basically a name for
the set of portTypes that comprise a service's function. Then,
one or more services can support that service type.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
To: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: Should a Service Implement a Single PortType?


> Hi,
>  I second this request because now the WSDL service is really
> somewhat too general.
>  If a service's ports were to implement the same portType, that
> would truly mean different accesspoints to the same service.
>  If, on the other hand, we really want to group multiple
> interfaces into one, the logical "one" should be called something
> like serviceGroup or something.
>  I can see the meaning and usefullness of the relationship
> between different accesspoints to the same portType, but the
> relationship between two portTypes in a service is everything but
> clear.
>  I think the WSDL <definitons> (if named) can successfully imply
> the general relationship between the different services defined
> therein, so we don't need the general service construct.
>  Best regards,
>
>                    Jacek Kopecky
>
>                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
>
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Arthur Ryman wrote:
>
>  > In WSDL 1.1 a service is a set of ports. Each port could in principle
be
>  > bound to a different portType. I think this is too general. It would be
>  > simpler if every port in a service was bound to a single portType.
>  >
>  > In practice this was not possible because the binding rules for HTTP
GET
>  > and POST required slightly different portTypes than SOAP. However, if
>  > this problem is fixed, then should we require all ports to uses the
same
>  > portType within a service?
>  >
>  > This is really not much of a restriction, since you can easily define
>  > multiple services and can reuse common types and messages via an
import.
>  >
>  > Having a service implement a single portType would give it more
>  > cohesion.
>  >
>  > -- Arthur Ryman
>  >
Received on Sunday, 31 March 2002 23:16:42 GMT

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