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

RE: proposal for restricting a service to a single interface

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:46:53 -0700
Message-ID: <7C083876C492EB4BAAF6B3AE0732970E0B3996A8@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I must confess to not really understanding the motivation behind this
proposal. It seems to me that people that want a service to implement
but a single interface can define such a service today using our current
spec. And those that want a service to implement multiple interfaces can
also do that today. I'm not sure why we would want to remove one of
these capabilities.

Gudge 

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Sent: 21 April 2003 23:40
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> 
> 
> 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 Wednesday, 23 April 2003 17:47:03 GMT

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