W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > March 2004

Re: features & properties: anywhere or only selected places??

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:30:26 -0800
Message-ID: <40522BF2.2060304@oracle.com>
To: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
Cc: "Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>, "'Umit Yalcinalp'" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org

Well said. +1
What is important is that WSDL provide a good, general and extensible 
framework for this.

-Anish
--

Roberto Chinnici wrote:

> Kevin,
> 
> I agree that "WSDL's scope is to describe a single service and that we
> should focus on what's in scope and provide a SIMPLE BUT SUFFICIENT
> service description language".
> 
> But I'd like the language to be sufficient not for the needs of two
> years ago, but for the needs of the foreseeable future. Those needs are
> represented by the different working groups that are basing their work
> on WSDL -- things like security, reliability, management.
> 
> In my opinion, it's fully within the mission of this working group to
> define a general *framework* that other groups can build on to enrich
> a service description with information about security, reliability, etc.
> 
> Clearly, all those groups will run into a set of common issues, e.g.
>   - defining ways to annotate service descriptions with additional
>     information;
>   - defining a processing model for these "annotations" and setting
>     limits to what the specification for an annotation can mandate;
>   - clarifying how annotations will interact with each other when
>     they are applied to the same WSDL component;
>   - defining how annotations will (formally or informally) compose with
>     each other when applied at different levels in a chain of components,
>     i.e. along the service->endpoint->binding->interface->operation axis;
>   - defining how annotations interplay with operation inheritance;
>   - specifying the means by which WSDL authors can compose annotations
>     into more complex expressions.
> 
> Does duplication of work across multiple groups and potential gratuitous
> differences in the adopted solutions appeal to anybody?
> 
> Do implementors wish to juggle the potentially conflicting requirements
> on processors placed by a dozen different specs? I don't.
> 
> Why then shouldn't our group address some of these issues and provide
> a coherent answer in the form of a framework such as f&p (with 
> compositors)?
> 
> Regards,
> Roberto
> 
> 
> Liu, Kevin wrote:
> 
>> It's really not important what's the other spec. My point is that F&P 
>> deserves its own complete solution which WSDL should be able to 
>> compose with.
>> WSDL's scope is to describe a single service. We should focus on what' 
>> s in scope and provide a SIMPLE BUT SUFFICIENT service description 
>> language. Anything else, including policy, security, reliability... 
>> should be left for other specs.
>> Best Regards,
>> Kevin
>>  
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] 
>> On Behalf Of Anish Karmarkar
>> Sent: Thursday, Mar 11, 2004 10:50 AM
>> To: Liu, Kevin
>> Cc: 'Umit Yalcinalp'; Sanjiva Weerawarana; www-ws-desc@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: features & properties: anywhere or only selected places??
>>
>>
>>
>> Liu, Kevin wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I don't recall the group has ever agreed that F&P can appear under 
>>> <service>. What's the use case for that?
>>>
>>> It's only a few days to our last call, how many of us in the group 
>>> are confident that he/she fully understand how the WSDL F&P things 
>>> work. Am I the only one worrying? Since Feature and property are such 
>>> an important area, I am very concerned that we are making WSDL 
>>> unnecessarily complicated while only provide a partial solution.
>>> I am against to expand it to any more element. Instead, I suggest we 
>>> remove F&P from WSDL2.0, and leave it to other specs where it belongs 
>>> to.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I curious about what you mean by 'other specs'? Can you please 
>> elaborate? I cannot think of any other non-proprietary spec that deals 
>> with this issue.
>>
>> -Anish
>> -- 
>>
>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] 
>>> On Behalf Of Umit Yalcinalp
>>> Sent: Wednesday, Mar 10, 2004 11:52 AM
>>> To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
>>> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: features & properties: anywhere or only selected places??
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>
>>>> I was always under the impression that <feature> and <property>
>>>> elements are allowed under any element .. however, the spec
>>>> says otherwise. Did I just get confused?
>>>>
>>>> Sanjiva.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I guess you mean any component? We definitely need F&P under the 
>>> service element (more precisely ServiceType ;-)) in addition to 
>>> interface/operation/binding/binding operation components.
>>>
>>> --umit
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 12 March 2004 16:31:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:30 GMT