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

Re: proposal for restricting a service to a single interface

From: Amelia A. Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:14:09 -0400
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-Id: <20030430141409.51a88c0a.alewis@tibco.com>

On Thu, 1 May 2003 00:03:36 +0600
"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@macromedia.com> writes:
> > Bottom line - don't force developers who want to do the simple stuff
> > 
> > to handle the potentially complex stuff.  Keep the simple stuff
> > simple and add complexity as needed in a modular fashion.
> 
> +1.
> 
> And I'd like to add that I'm yet to find any deployed services
> which actually use multiple portTypes. If anyone knows of any
> please do send a pointer. If there aren't any, then this is
> a simplification which many will appreciate and none will miss.

Red Herring.

There can't be, because at the moment there aren't useful bindings to
things like asynchronous protocols that would make it useful.  When
everything looks like HTTP, then everything looks like HTTP, and it
makes perfect sense to impose silly restrictions.

For what it's worth, I *agree* that we should keep it simple.  I reject
the argument that this proposal does so.  The proposal only requires
that all ports have the same interface, not that they be the same
service instance.  If they require that they be the same instance, *and*
the same interface, they complicate things for people exposing multiple
forms of access, without simplifying *anything* for the people who use a
single protocol.

Zero value.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2003 14:13:59 GMT

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