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

Re: Remove binding? ( was RE: Proposed renamings)

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:01:39 +0100
Message-ID: <3E5F6BC3.2090505@crf.canon.fr>
To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
CC: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, www-ws-desc@w3.org

Yes, you're right, this way we could do layered bindings as well! 
I like it.

We might need to provide a style guideline in complement, i.e. 
warn people that it might be a bad (or maybe a good?) idea to put 
everything in one single portType.

Jean-Jacques.

Martin Gudgin wrote:
> So, at the component level, binding is almost identical to port type; the only difference is that you can specify multiple bases for a port type, but only one 'base' for a binding. So, why don't we get rid of binding completely and use port type inheritance to layer in the binding info? For example, given port types
>  
> A
> | 
> B
>  
> where A and B are port types as they stand today. Then
>  
> B
> |
> C
>  
> where C contains binding extensions related to message serialization and says "we'll serialize the messages using a SOAP Envelope"
>  
> and then 
>  
>  C
> | | 
> D E
>  
> where D and E contain other binding extensions related to actual transportation of bits and say "we'll send the bits over HTTP" (D) or "We'll send the bits over TCP" (E)
>  
> This seems nice and flexible to me, it's clean at the component level, the syntax would be the same level of complexity as we have today and it gives us a way to do layered bindings, which have been mentioned by several people. People can build using as many or as few layers as they like.
>  
> Comments, flames etc. to the usual address
>  
> Gudge
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> Sent: Fri 28/02/2003 08:57
> To: Philippe Le Hegaret
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed renamings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any keyword other than <interfaceBinding> that we could
> use to help alleviate the confusion between a WSDL binding and a
> SOAP binding?
> 
> A SOAP binding specifies how to (physically) transport a SOAP
> message over an undertlying protocol. A WSDL binding specifies
> how abstract messages are serialized and what protocol is used.
> It does not in itself indicate how the messages are physically
> transported. The terms are different, but complementary, and
> apply to different layers. I have seen so much confusion between
> the two, even on W3C mailing lists, that I would be keen to name
> them differently.
> 
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> 
>>[I thought I sent these yesterday but don't see it in the archives, so
>>sending it again]
>>
>>I've got an action item to start a proposal on renaming elements and/or
>>attributes in WSDL 1.2. This proposal is based on the latest WSDL 1.2
>>drafts and the requirements document. I'll keep track of sub-sequa=ente
>>proposals
>>
>>- portType
>> The requirements document has the following:
>> [[
>> Interface (AKA Port Type)
>>  [Definition: A logical grouping of operations. An Interface represents
>>  an abstract Web Service type, independent of transmission protocol and
>>  data format.]
>> ]]
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-ws-desc-reqs-20021028/#normDefs
>>
>>In 2.4.2 XML Representation of Port Type Component:
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-wsdl12-20030124/#PortType_XMLRep
>>
>> A [local name] of portType
>>
>> would read
>>
>> A [local name] of interface
>>
>>-  EndPoint (AKA Port)
>> The requirements document has the following:
>> [[
>> EndPoint (AKA Port)
>>  [Definition: An association between a fully-specified InterfaceBinding
>>  and a network address, specified by a URI [IETF RFC 2396], that may be
>>  used to communicate with an instance of a Web Service. An EndPoint
>>  indicates a specific location for accessing a Web Service using a
>>  specific protocol and data format.]
>> ]]
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-wsdl12-20030124/#Port_XMLRep
>>
>>In 2.11.2 XML Representation of Port Component
>>
>> A [local name] of port
>>
>> would read
>>
>> A [local name] of endPoint
>>
>>
>>We may also do the following but, if we don't, I'll recommend changing
>>the glossary of our requirements document.
>>
>>- binding
>> The requirements document has the following:
>> [[
>> InterfaceBinding
>>  [Definition: An association between an Interface, a concrete protocol
>>  and/or a data format. An InterfaceBinding specifies the protocol
>>  and/or data format to be used in transmitting Messages defined by the
>>  associated Interface.]
>> ]]
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-ws-desc-reqs-20021028/#normDefs
>>
>>In 2.7.2 XML Representation of Binding Component
>>In http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-wsdl12-20030124/#Binding_XMLRep
>>
>> A [local name] of binding
>>
>> would read
>>
>> A [local name] of interfaceBinding
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 09:02:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:22 GMT