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

Re: proposal for restricting a service to a single interface

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:09:44 -0400
To: "Sergey Beryozkin" <sberyozkin@zandar.com>
Cc: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>, "WS-Desc \(\(Public\)\)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF617EECC4.02A84205-ON85256D16.005C7F62@torolab.ibm.com>

The proposal is attached to 

Yes, a message can have multiple endpoints, e.g. in the proposal the 
example is a part list. Each part is an endpoint.

How do you associate the set of bindings with an interface? The closest 
thing in WSDL is <service>.

If several bindngs are available, then the message can contain an endpoint 
for each. The semantics of the message must indicate that these are 
alternative bindings. That can be done through <documentation> - no built 
in concept for that. However, I agree that this is awkward. The proposal 
is not infinitely flexible. I thought it best to err on the side of 
simplicity. If many people complain that it is too restrictive, then we 
can add more features. But I do believe that most common cases are 

Arthur Ryman,
WebSphere Studio Development Lead,
Web Services, XML and Data Tools

phone: 905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: 905-413-2323, TL 969-2323
fax: 905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
intranet: http://w3.torolab.ibm.com/~ryman/

"Sergey Beryozkin" <sberyozkin@zandar.com>
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
04/28/2003 11:58 AM

        To:     Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
        cc:     "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>, "WS-Desc \(\(Public\)\)" 
<www-ws-desc@w3.org>, <www-ws-desc-request@w3.org>
        Subject:        Re: proposal for restricting a service to a single interface



Thanks for the comments.

> Yes, the default value for @xpath is "." which selects the entire part.
That's in the proposal.
Is there a public link to the proposal ?
If XPath selectors are supported, then are multiple endpoints per single
(complex) part also supported ?

>Making the binding optional is much more problematic since many bindings
can be applied to an interface >and there is not necessarily even a
<service> element to list the bindings that are provided. I would 
maintain that the @binding is required.

I just thought that it might be possible to keep an association between
bindings and interfaces, even if a service element is not available.
In that case, if @binding is absent, then if there are multiple bindings
available, a binding of the same type as that of the binding  for the
referencing service must be chosen; otherwise, a single available binding 
If a specific binding is required, then @binding may/should be specified.
Alternatively, some client runtimes may use some policy/configuration info
when choosing between multiple bindings.

Sergey Beryozkin
Zandar Technologies, Dublin, Ireland
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 13:09:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:42 UTC