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

RE: Port type extension proposal

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 03:53:47 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E02D3084B@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
> Sent: 02 October 2002 19:27
> To: Martin Gudgin; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Port type extension proposal
> 
> 
> "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> writes:
> > > - We need to have multiple portTypes per service, not just one. We
> > >   believe that different aspects of a service's function are best
> > >   modeled by different portTypes and it does not make sense to 
> > >   force one to combine all of them into one portType.
> > 
> > OK, I've just written up what I think the TF agreed. We 
> need to think 
> > carefully about what we want going forward.
> 
> I believe the IBM position (as a member of the TF too) has 
> changed. So it is no longer the view of the TF .. sorry.

OK. I have no problem with that. The proposal needs amending
appropriately.

> 
> Also, multiple portTypes per service is status quo right? 

Well, strictly speaking single serviceType per service is the status
quo.

> So 
> I'd say the onus is on the proponents of a single portType 
> scenario to justify why its better to go down to one?

I think the rationale was that it's not necessary to have multiple
portTypes at the service level if you can aggregate at the portType
level.

> 
> > > - The service must indicate its "type": with portType inheritance
> > >   in place we (IBM) would prefer to have the service just indicate
> > >   the interfaces it supports:
> > >     <service implements="pt1 .. ptn"> ... </service>
> > 
> > Are you saying that you don't want port type B to inherit from port 
> > type A but rather that a service would just say that it implements 
> > port type A and port type B?
> 
> I'm saying that A or B may have their own inheritance 
> hierarchies, but that we do not want to force every service 
> to have precisely one portType. This is functionality that 
> already exists in WSDL .. 
> 
> If one wants to say B inherits from A and then say the service 
> implements B that's fine. However, we believe there are many 
> scenarios where a service will support more than one portType 
> which are not related by an inheritance relationship.

OK. I didn't realise that both bullet one and two in your original mail
were making the same point.

Gudge
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2002 06:54:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:21 GMT