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

Re: targetResource wording

From: Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@zandar.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:48:02 +0100
Message-ID: <00ca01c3380c$a983b550$93a4a5c2@zandarpc>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Hello,

> How would you design that in WSDL 1.1? You would have to have
> different services too and it would look the same, except that
> there wouldn't be a targetResource attribute to indicate the
> resource. What that allows is *another* service to say its
> messing with the same resource.
>
> One can of course define a printer service in which every
> operation takes the printer as an argument. In that case one
> wouldn't need different services .. the printer is part of
> the input.

So, a targetResource attribute allows to state *upfront* that both services
managing the same resource at the cost of introducing potentially a lot of
service descriptions.

But are there any alternative ways to do the same ? As you said, one way is
to pass the most suitable printer to every operation on the printer
service/printer manager.

Please let's assume for a moment that a @targetResource does not identify
every physical printer which needs to be managed, it just identifies the
fact that printerManager and printer services talk to the same printer
resource.

What do you think about different approaches :

1. A client is passing its location(etc) to a printer service which
internally finds a closest printer and returns a job id which would allow a
print manager to find this printer.
If a client's preference is to print not at the closest printer, but at a
named one, then a name only would be passed to a printer service, which
return a job id.

2. Using requirement WSDL R085 :
 - Client requests (using GET, for ex) a list of available printers - all of
them, or meeting some criteria, such as location, for ex;
 - A list of printer data is returned, each list includes a printer name,
its endpoint, as well as that printer's management service endpoint
- Client POSTs a print request to a print service, and gets a job id in
response
- Client POSTs a job id to a management service requesting to cancel it

What is interesting in this case is that instead of writing something like
this  :
PrintService.print()
PrintManager.cancel()

I'd write something like this :

PrintJob job = PrintService.print()
job.cancel(job.id)

What is your opinion ?
Thanks
Sergey Beryozkin



Can't WSDL requirement R085 achieve the same, that is
Received on Saturday, 21 June 2003 11:49:21 GMT

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