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: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 08:35:24 -0700
Message-ID: <7C083876C492EB4BAAF6B3AE0732970E0B399AA6@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

But we have yet to see the binding part of the proposal, or did I miss
an e-mail somewhere?

Gudge 

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tom Jordahl
> Sent: 24 April 2003 16:07
> To: 'www-ws-desc@w3.org'
> 
> 
> > Motivation is simple: Simplification.
> 
> +1 to that!
> 
> I like this proposal, they key words that Sanjiva put in 
> there were "dramatically simplify the binding stuff".
> 
> Music to my ears!!!
> 
> --
> Tom Jordahl
> Macromedia Server Development
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 6:45 PM
> To: Martin Gudgin; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: proposal for restricting a service to a single interface
> 
> 
> Motivation is simple: Simplification.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
> To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; 
> <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 5:46 PM
> 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 Thursday, 24 April 2003 11:35:53 GMT

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