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

Re: proposal for restricting a service to a single interface

From: Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@zandar.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:16:06 +0100
Message-ID: <002e01c30f3c$2fc6d4c0$1800a8c0@BERYOZKIN>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Arthur, 
thanks for looking at the proposal at [1] , inspired by the experimental service [2] - its use of relative URIs is interesting indeed. 
Cheers
Sergey Beryozkin
Zandar Technologies, Dublin, Ireland

[1] http://www.zandar.com/webservices/articles/SessionWebServices.htm
    ("Time to REST" section - no bookmarks, sorry)  
[2] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/8201
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Arthur Ryman 
  To: www-ws-desc@w3.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 5:26 PM
  Subject: Re: proposal for restricting a service to a single interface



  Sergey, 

  I looked at [1] and your <reference> proposal is structurally very similar to the <endpoint> proposal. In your proposal the @wsdl specifies a binding: 

  <portType name="InformationQueryPortType"> 
    <operation name="getToolkits"> 
      <output message="tns:getToolkitsResponse"> 
        <!-- part attribute is optional when a message has only one part --> 
        <reference part="toolkits" portType="ToolkitPortType" 
                          xpath="q:Toolkits/q:Toolkit/@wsdl"/> 
        <!-- possibly some more references to other port types in this output, within the same part or other parts --> 
      </output> 
    </operation> 
  </portType> 

  Your use of xpath is the same, but in the <endpoint> proposal, the binding info is defered to the <binding> element and is declared statically in the WSDL document. 

  Concerning relative URIs, I suggest that XML Base [2] be used. I'll start a separate thread on that. 

  [1] http://www.zandar.com/webservices/articles/SessionWebServices.htm 
  [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/ 

  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 
        04/29/2003 12:20 PM 

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

                



  Arthur,

  please have a look at
  http://www.zandar.com/webservices/articles/SessionWebServices.htm (I wrote
  it back in November 2002), the relevant part is "Time to REST" section at
  the bottom of the article, where I was trying to put some suggestions
  regarding R085 resolution (using Simon Fell's registration service as an
  example, thanks).  It took me some time this morning to understand what I
  was trying to say there :-); the idea was that to discover a binding
  dynamically at runtime for a given endpoint an extra @wsdl attribute was
  required, and it was that @wsdl attribute that was located through an xpath
  selector. xlink:href which is used across the service is relative, and as
  such there was an assumption that the runtime knows that it must append
  xlink:href's value to the endpoint'sURI of the referencing service, and use
  GET (or whatever the dynamically discovered binding says) on a new URI.
  Also instead of specifying and locating @wsdl attribute (it's xlink:href
  which must be located and @binding attribute, if required, be used instead ,
  as shown in the proposal [1]), issuing HTTP OPTIONS [2] on the new URI could
  theoretically get the binding as well, thus making the binding discovery
  process completely automatic, it may not be practical though.
  By the way, are relative URIs (as the values of xlink:href) are allowed in
  the proposal [1] ?

  Thank you
  Sergey Beryozkin,
  Zandar Technologies, Dublin, Ireland

  [1]
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Apr/att-0088/R085-2003-0
  4-22.html
  [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Nov/0006.html



  Sergey,

  > But what if each part contains multiple endpoints itself ? <p:Part>, for
  > example, might not only contain a specification URI, but also have a list
  > of vendor' URIs, etc.

  If the message contains multiple endpoints of different interface types,
  then you use a <endpoint> for each. The <endpoint> element is a child of
  <input>, <output> or <fault> and can appear many times within each.
  e.g.
  <input>
         <endpoint name="partUri" interface="tns:PartInterface" ..../>
         <endpoint name="specUri" interface="tns:SpecInterface" .../>
  </input>

  Arthur Ryman,
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2003 13:16:07 GMT

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