W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2003

RE: proposal for restricting a service to a single interface

From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:18:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CB1FF0A474AEA84EA0206D5B05F6A4CB02550001@S1001EXM02.macromedia.com>
To: "'James M Snell'" <jasnell@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "'www-ws-desc@w3.org'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>


Hi James!

I think the idea behind the change is that when you think of "a web service" you typically imagine a coherent set of APIs which, though they might be accessible via different bindings, are consistent in all cases.

Having a "service" be something that could implement interface A (but not B) on one binding and interface B (but not A) on another binding doesn't seem very useful unless you like confusion. :)  With this change, a service would be an entity which performs a particular set of operations via one or more bindings, rather than a potentially disconnected set of operations and bindings.

Myself, I like it.  Interestingly, I believe the Grid guys are psyched about this change.

--G

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James M Snell [mailto:jasnell@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 12:49 AM
> To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: proposal for restricting a service to a single interface
> 
> 
> I understand the motivation for this, but I'm a bit 
> confused... if y'all 
> add this limitation, how do I describe a single service that 
> does in fact 
> implement multiple portTypes (e.g. OGSA services)
> 
> - James M Snell
>   jasnell@us.ibm.com
>   http://www.ibm.com
>   (877) 511-5082 / Office
>   930-1979 / Tie Line
> 
> 
> 
> "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> 
> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> 04/21/2003 03:39 PM
> 
> To
> <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> cc
> 
> Subject
> proposal for restricting a service to a single interface
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Following up on the action item I have, I'd like to propose
> the following:
> 
> - Require all <port>s within a <service> element to implement
>   exactly the same interface. Thus, each <port> is an alternate
>   implementation of the same interface.
> - The interface will be indicated with a new attribute: 
>     <service interface="qname"> ... </service>
> - As with any interface in WSDL 1.2, this interface could
>   have extended any number of other interfaces.
> 
> I will soon send the updated binding proposal which takes this
> into account to dramatically simplify the binding stuff. If
> this doesn't get accepted then I'll re-do the binding proposal.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2003 14:19:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:23 GMT