RE: CORBA, specific/generic

I meant to send this to the list ...

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 4:58 PM
To: Anne Thomas Manes
Subject: Re: CORBA, specific/generic


Anne, feel free to send to the list - we should capture this, it's
good stuff.

On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 03:43:40PM -0400, Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
> Do we also want to distinguish between abstract and implementation
> interfaces?
>
> WSDL gives you the ability to define an abstract interface (the portType)
> which can be implemented by any number of specific interfaces using any
> number of different bindings. The semantics of the different
implementations
> would be different based on the bindings.

Good point.  This is a really tricky space, as you've got to account for
the different ways in which WSDL can interact with what its bound too.
Currently, WSDL has some issues when bound to application protocols[1],
but it's much more at home when bound to SOAP and MIME.  For example, the
current WSDL HTTP binding only supports tunneling, not the chameleon use
of SOAP.

So IMO, we should talk about how the connector semantics of Web services
using HTTP are replaced by those described in the WSDL, rather than
reusing those provided by HTTP (or of any underlying application
protocol).  (perhaps using those words)

How does that sound?

 [1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2002Jul/0000

MB
--
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com

Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2002 10:31:30 UTC