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

Re: Proposal for LC73/LC75n (multiple interfaces for a service)

From: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:47:07 -0800
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: WS Description List <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-id: <41A4C91B.6040700@sun.com>

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> Hi Roberto,
> 
> You do realize that the cleaner syntax you proposed is isomorphic
> to the serviceGroup idea syntax right?

Syntax-wise, yes. Component-wise, no, since I'm not proposing to
introduce a Service Interface component with first class status.
It also helps that I didn't use the word "resource" anywhere.

BTW, I missed that f2f, but the pictures [1] sure look impressive!

> I gotta think about your proposal (and consult the other 186K
> technical employees of IBM) before I can respond.

Take your time...  ;-)

> I am however a bit disappointed that one person can make a well-
> publicized critique of WSDL and that that gives sufficient ground
> to re-open an issue we belaboured over for so long. Sigh.

Actually, the proposal has been brewing for a while. Every time that
I tried to explain the alternatives to people (i.e. splitting a web
service in n "services" to fit the WSDL model, or creating a giant
derived interface), they didn't look happy, to say the least.

> Also, we'd be going back to WD (I would absolutely insist on that;
> this is a fundamental change) ==> at least 6 more months? Sigh sigh.

If it helps, I swear I'm not readying a proposal to reintroduce message.  ;-)

[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/05/wsd-pics/dcp_4975.jpg

Roberto
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2004 17:47:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:33 GMT