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,

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.
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: []
>>On Behalf Of Anne Thomas Manes
>>Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 7:59 AM
>>Subject: Raising an ugly issue again
>>I apologize in advance for raising this ugly issue again. Perhaps I
>>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"
>>The SOA architecture requires that a web service expose multiple
>>- 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
>>How does WSDL 2.0 support these basic SOA requirements if a service
>>definition is constrained such that it implements at most one

Received on Monday, 23 May 2005 07:01:44 UTC