RE: Raising an ugly issue again

I think the WG understands your point of view well.  Unfortunately, a
majority of the WG doesn't agree with you, despite lots of discussion of
this topic.

Should I consider this as a rejection of our resolution of your comment
that we should carry forward and bring to the Director's attention?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:atm@bowlight.net]
> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 8:13 AM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: Anne Thomas Manes; public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Raising an ugly issue again
> 
> Given that you've received "several comments" on this issue, I don't
> understand why you aren't willing to revisit this issue. Although
> inheritance can "solve" the relevant use cases, it's non-intuitive,
> and
> I think it will cause a great deal of confusion for potential users of
> WSDL 2.0, and it may be significant enough of an issue to forestall
> wide
> adoption of the new spec.
> 
> Best regards,
> Anne
> 
> Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> 
> >Thank you for your comment - we tracked this as a Last Call comment
> LC73
> >[1].  The Working Group had several comments on the issue of
> >single-interface per service but there was no consensus to revisit
> our
> >design.  We believe inheritance solves some of relevant use cases,
> and
> >feel mechanisms describing other relationships between services
> should
> >be defined outside the WSDL WG.  If we don't hear otherwise within
> two
> >weeks, we will assume this satisfies your concern.
> >
> >[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC73
> >[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-20050510/#Description_details
> >
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> >>On Behalf Of Anne Thomas Manes
> >>Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 7:59 AM
> >>To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> >>Subject: Raising an ugly issue again
> >>
> >>
> >>I apologize in advance for raising this ugly issue again. Perhaps I
> >>just
> >>don't understand the model well enough, and maybe you can explain it
> >>to me,
> >>but I'm really concerned about the "one interface per service"
> >>constraint.
> >>
> >>The SOA architecture requires that a web service expose multiple
> >>interfaces:
> >>- its functional interface
> >>- a management interface (WSDM, WS-Management, etc)
> >>- a metadata discovery interface (WS-MetadataExchange, etc)
> >>- an interactive interface (WSRP, etc)
> >>- potentially others
> >>
> >>I have clients that also require that a web service support
> >>versioning, in
> >>which case the service will expose multiple versions of its
> functional
> >>interface.
> >>
> >>How does WSDL 2.0 support these basic SOA requirements if a service
> >>definition is constrained such that it implements at most one
> >>interface?
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>Anne
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Received on Saturday, 21 May 2005 17:19:55 UTC