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

Re: proposal for restricting a service to a single interface

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 08:27:29 +0600
Message-ID: <026b01c30f8d$8db9b830$72545ecb@lankabook2>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "'Amelia A. Lewis'" <alewis@tibco.com>, "'Arthur Ryman'" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

There's only one proposal AFAIK .. add an "interface" attribute
to <service> and fix up bindings appropriately. I am working
on simplifying the bindings right now.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
To: "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; "'David Orchard'"
<dorchard@bea.com>; "'Amelia A. Lewis'" <alewis@tibco.com>; "'Arthur Ryman'"
<ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 4:05 AM
Subject: RE: proposal for restricting a service to a single interface


> How many are there for the restricting # of interfaces?  You say "the
> interface-per-service", but there are at least 2 different ways of doing
> that.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 2:14 PM
> > To: David Orchard; 'Amelia A. Lewis'; 'Arthur Ryman'
> > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: proposal for restricting a service to a single interface
> >
> > <snip/>
> > > 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.
> >
> > We are discussing two independent proposals: one about restricting
> > the number of interfaces supported by <service> and another related
> > to R-085. The comment from Amy was related to the
> > interfaces-per-service
> > proposal: she finds my proposal to restrict a service to one interface
> > valueless. I obviously disagree.
> >
> > W.r.t. Arthur's proposal for R-085, I am confused as to where
> > we stand;
> > I see most discussion terminating postively but I could be biased in
> > my interpretation.
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
> >
> >
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2003 22:57:56 GMT

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