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

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.

Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
Received on Monday, 2 June 2003 10:47:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:42 UTC