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

Re: Remove binding? ( was RE: Proposed renamings)

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: 03 Mar 2003 14:49:56 +0100
To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: WS Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1046529402.1024.6.camel@localhost.localdomain>

Gudge,

with the distionction between portTypes and bindings we are able to
distinguish between something abstract and something concrete. The
abstract part should be enough to define the interface for the
application, whereas the concrete stuff is necessary for actual
deployment.

Personally, I like this distinction, so I'd prefer we keep bindings and
portTypes separate. I don't see why bindings should not be made layered,
if it's considered useful, though.

Best regards,

              Jacek Kopecky
              Systinet Corporation
              http://www.systinet.com


On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 11:38, 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 Monday, 3 March 2003 08:50:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:23 GMT