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

RE: proposal for restricting a service to a single interface

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:09:30 -0700
To: "'Amelia A. Lewis'" <alewis@tibco.com>, "'Arthur Ryman'" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00b101c30f5c$cad5e850$910ba8c0@beasys.com>

How is the restriction valueless?  Pardon my ignorance.

I think the restriction seems quite valuable.

Out of curiousity, how many "proposals" are out there?  I would love to be
able to compare and contrast all the different ones.  The ones I know of
are: Arthur's, mine, Amy's, status quo.

Any chance of having an issue owner that collects all these proposals and
pros/cons together in a single document?  I'd be glad to volunteer, but I'm
probably not the right person to do this.

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Amelia A. Lewis
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 11:55 AM
> To: Arthur Ryman
> Cc: sanjiva@watson.ibm.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org;
> www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: proposal for restricting a service to a single interface
>
>
>
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:50:14 -0400
> "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > So are you saying each port should refer to the same
> instance, but be
> > allowed to have any binding?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Or do you want the status quo?
>
> No.  But the status quo seems better, to me, than a valueless
> restriction.
>
> Amy!
> --
> Amelia A. Lewis
> Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
> alewis@tibco.com
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2003 17:07:08 GMT

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