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

Re: targetResource wording

From: Fred Carter <fred.carter@amberpoint.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:02:45 -0700
Message-ID: <3EF35A55.5000708@amberpoint.com>
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org

Thus quoth Fred Carter (~ 20-Jun-03 11:23 AM ~)...
> 
> Thus quoth Sergey Beryozkin (~ 20-Jun-03 5:19 AM ~)...
> 

> Suppose there are two interfaces, printing & printermgmt. Printing 
> contains the operation "print" which returns a job id.  printermgmt 
> contains, amongst others, the cancelJob operation.
> 
> If I print to some print endpiing with a targetResource and later decide 
(Sorry -- must learn  to proofread -- s/endpiing/endpoint/
> to cancel it, I need to know which thing on which to perform the 
> cancelJob operation. In  this case, the 'targetResource' identifies the 
> printing subsystem.  Depending upon the enterprise's choices, this may 
> be a server, a printer, a farm of printers in some room with a common 
> manager or spooler, whatever -- we don't know.  We just know that two 
> endpoints employing these interfaces refer to the same 'collected stuff' 
> -- that identified by the 'targetResource'.
> 
> (Arguments about bad interface decisions are not terribly relevant. 
> There will always be cases where there are different interfaces.)
> 
> If, OTOH, one could put the 'printing' and 'printermgmt' interfaces into 
> the same service, this wouldn't be a problem.  But it is in the current 
> thinking.
(meaning:  But it is [a problem] in the current thinking.)
> 
> IMHO:  This issue exists ONLY because of the "service contains a single 
> interface" decision.
> 
> 


-- 
Fred Carter / AmberPoint, Inc.

mailto:fred.carter@amberpoint.com
tel:+1.510.433.6525 fax:+1.510.663.6301
Received on Friday, 20 June 2003 15:02:41 GMT

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