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

Re: proposal for restricting a service to a single interface

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 18:49:49 -0400
Message-ID: <04de01c309ea$a502d790$72545ecb@lankabook2>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

How is this proposal making things worse?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>; "Sanjiva Weerawarana"
<sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 6:27 PM
Subject: RE: proposal for restricting a service to a single interface


> 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 18:49:03 GMT

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