- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:01:39 +0100
- 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 UTC