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

RE: proposal for restricting a service to a single interface

From: Steve Graham <sggraham@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:47:31 -0400
To: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@us.ibm.com>, "'www-ws-desc@w3.org'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFB509D72E.356E2A68-ON85256D10.00672F3D@us.ibm.com>





Well, I for one find the proposal good, because a single interface makes it
easier to discover a service using a capabilities lookup.

sgg

++++++++
Steve Graham
sggraham@us.ibm.com
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
Emerging Technologies
++++++++



                                                                                                                                       
                      Glen Daniels                                                                                                     
                      <gdaniels@macrome        To:       James M Snell/Fresno/IBM@IBMUS                                                
                      dia.com>                 cc:       "'www-ws-desc@w3.org'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>                                   
                      Sent by:                 Subject:  RE: proposal for restricting a service to a single interface                  
                      www-ws-desc-reque                                                                                                
                      st@w3.org                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                       
                      04/22/2003 02:18                                                                                                 
                      PM                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                       






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 15:24:22 GMT

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