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

Re: Proposal for Describing Web Services that Refer to Other Web Services: R085

From: Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@zandar.com>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 16:48:28 +0100
Message-ID: <004c01c30ff9$1c3f2700$1800a8c0@BERYOZKIN>
To: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Hello,

I'd just like to return again to the question of whether dynamic bindings
should be disallowed by the proposal[1]or not. Proposal [1] says @binding
attribute is declared statically in the WSDL document, this probably covers
the majority of cases.

How practical/usefult would it be to add @binding optional attribute to the
endpoint reference definition :

<wsdl:endpoint name="partURI" part="return"
xpath="/p:Parts/Part/@xlink:href" interface="tns:partInterface"
binding="dynamic"/>

@binding attribute can have 2 values, "static" (default) and "dynamic". When
@binding is "dynamic", the runtime *may*, but has not to, try to retrieve a
binding definition from the newly created URI (perhaps with an extra
path/request parameter to indicate that it's not the representation which is
requested).
If dynamic binding discovery is not attempted/fails, a binding statically
referenced (as shown in [1]) will be used.
If dynamic binding is used then a wsdl doc is returned. This returned wsdl
must contain a binding for a given interface (probably identified the way
shown in [1]), and may/should also contain a <service> element. One issue
here is that the returned wsdl has to know about portTypes/interfaces
referenced in the original wsdl doc, and a such, these portTypes must be
grouped in a separate WSDL doc.

Thanks
Sergey Beryozkin

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Apr/att-0088/R085-2003-0
4-22.html
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2003 11:48:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:24 GMT