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

RE: Single interface per service?... Why?

From: VAMBENEPE,WILLIAM (HP-Cupertino,ex1) <vbp@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 11:34:10 -0700
Message-ID: <68157FD469848D45B9CBC2833AD55280021593C8@xsun02.ptp.hp.com>
To: "'Amelia A. Lewis'" <alewis@tibco.com>, "Sedukhin, Igor S" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org


+1 too.

The "why are you crippling service for no benefit" voice was outgunned in
Rennes. If I had known your home or cell phone number Amy you might have
received a call in the middle of the night asking you to join the F2F
meeting by phone at the strategic time... ;-)

William

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amelia A. Lewis [mailto:alewis@tibco.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 7:17 AM
> To: Sedukhin, Igor S
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Single interface per service?... Why?
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed on all counts.  I remain completely unconvinced that 
> this change
> has offered any functionality of general applicability.
> 
> Amy!
> On Thu, 29 May 2003 16:43:48 -0400
> "Sedukhin, Igor S" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com> wrote:
> 
> > I have been reading the summary of F2F and decisions made 
> there and this
> > particular one I had an immediate doubt about. May be someone who is
> > standing behind the "single interface per service" could 
> clarify this
> > for me. May be there is something I'm missing from the 
> dicussions that
> > I'd better understand instead of simply recoding an 
> objection to that
> > decision.
> > 
> > Here is an example. There is a service A that has an 
> endpoint that binds
> > the interface A1. There is a service B and interface B1 similarily.
> > Those are internal services. I'd like to offer service C that is an
> > aggregate of two functionalities to a partner. I may have an
> > intermediary that may merely represent an aggregate. So, in 
> the WSDL I'd
> > have service C that has two endpoints, one binds interface A1 and
> > another binds B1. Both may or may not share the same address.
> > 
> > Now, this works in WSDL 1.1 and 1.2 restricts this to a very weird
> > workarround to represent the aggregation with some sort of foreign
> > targetResource or via inheritance and partial interface 
> bindings. WHY?
> > 
> > What was the objective of inroducing the one interface per service
> > restruction? Did it make anybody's life any significantly 
> easier? WSDL
> > processors have to take care of partial intefrace bindings 
> now, that may
> > be even more complicated…
> > 
> > It seems this has satisfied some kind of abstract concern 
> that may be
> > dabated to the end of the life, but the reality of 
> implementations did
> > not become any better, in fact it became uglier in one of the most
> > interesting cases of WS deployments.
> > 
> > -- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com) 
> > -- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Amelia A. Lewis
> Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
> alewis@tibco.com
> 
Received on Friday, 30 May 2003 14:34:16 GMT

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