Re: granularity/definition of a "service"

Any service that has been suitably exposed as a service that "receives only"
or "sends only" any kind of data whatsoever could be classified as a
service, because that is what it is supposed to do. However can the
fundamental operations of sending and receiving messages that any service is
suppose to perform, irrespective of the core functionalities it offers, be
classified as a "service" at its lowest level of granularity?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Dickinson" <ian.dickinson@hp.com>
To: "Huhns, Michael" <huhns@engr.sc.edu>
Cc: <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: granularity/definition of a "service"


>
> Huhns, Michael wrote:
> > A "service" that only receives is equivalent to a write-only memory.  I
> > have never found that to be a useful service and would like to hear
> > about the situation you are imagining where it would be a coherent
> > stand-alone functionality.
> You could argue that, for the average citizen, data-gathering by state
> security services is a write-only memory.  Likewise, any situation where
> information is captured that is intended to be read only be
> third-parties, not by the capturer him/her self.  Trojan-horse keystroke
> loggers would be an example (not that you'd choose to invoke such a
> service from a UDDI registry :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Ian
>
> Ian Dickinson
> HPLabs, Bristol, UK
>
>

Received on Sunday, 19 September 2004 15:08:35 UTC