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

Re: Why single-interface is broken

From: Amelia A. Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 10:48:19 -0400
To: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-Id: <20030602104819.012d51bf.alewis@tibco.com>

On Fri, 30 May 2003 16:50:48 -0700
"Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com> wrote:

> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> On
> > 
> > Redundancy is *bad*.  Specifying interface twice is *bad*.  If it's
> > going to happen at all, error-handling MUST be specified in
> > sufficient detail that two processors faced with the same
> > description report the same thing.
> 
> I don't disagree with your other points, but want to point out that
> there is a proposal on the table to eliminate the specification of an
> interface (was portType) on the binding to eliminate the redundancy
> between the service/@interface and binding/@interface.
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003May/0046.html

It is possible that I don't understand the presentation, but my reaction
to it is that it makes creation of a WSDL dramatically more complex,
unless you're doing request/response over HTTP (which appears to be the
"default" binding).

So long as the binding element remains, and contains child operations,
then the redundancy of interface specification (implicitly in binding;
all that is removed is explicitness) and service/@interface remains as
well.

The advantage of 1.1 is that it made clear that linkages went precisely
one step.  Messages are linked to in
portType/operation/{input|output|fault}.  portType is linked to in
binding.  binding is linked to in service/port.

In this revised model, so long as there is a binding element (useful for
modularity and reuse), there is a redundancy of specification between
service/@interface and the actual *content* of the binding, whether it
has an @interface attribute of its own or not.

This is again being represented as a simplification.  I've been reading
history of calendars this weekend; it puts me in mind of the
"simplification" of the easter computus in Gregory XIII's Inter
gravissimus.  Labelling it as simpler ... isn't the same as offering
something simpler.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Monday, 2 June 2003 10:47:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:25 GMT