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 15:27:52 -0700
Message-ID: <7C083876C492EB4BAAF6B3AE0732970E0B399758@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Yes, but your approach would not eliminate any capabilities in the
language ( it would make the language more expressive ). As far as I
understand it, Sanjiva's proposal would eliminate a capability ( it
would make the language less expressive ). Now, more vs less does not
necessarily equate to good vs bad. There are cases where being less
expressive makes things better, not worse, but I'm not convinced this is
one of them.

Gudge

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] 
> Sent: 23 April 2003 23:11
> To: Martin Gudgin; 'Sanjiva Weerawarana'; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> 
> Gudge,
> 
> As I said in an earlier email, it is often the case that 
> people need to KNOW whether the endpoints that implement the 
> same interface in a service are equivalent to each other or 
> not.  There's currently no way of indicating that in WSDL, at 
> least not that I know of.  I suggested one simple way ( a 
> special containment element for equivalent endpoints), but 
> Sanjiva's approach is even simpler.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of Martin Gudgin
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 2:47 PM
> > To: Sanjiva Weerawarana; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: proposal for restricting a service to a single 
> interface
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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 18:28:01 GMT

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