Re: There is no spoon Neo

Hi Frank,

Ah ok .. so if I undertand you correctly then you're identifying 
the need for something like the UML association concept right?
That is, a way to indicate that related to this particular endpoint
there's another endpoint that is say its management interface
and so on. So a "service" become a set of endpoints .. some of
which implement the business interface of the service and others
which do various other things (and presumably implementing different
business interfaces).

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Francis McCabe" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: There is no spoon Neo


> 
> Identifying Web service with a single entrypoint is fine; except that 
> in the real world most people consider a Web service to denote a 
> related set of entrypoints. (My terminology: to avoid getting into 
> semantics).
> 
> I.e., most people will need to describe/manage/deal with sets of these 
> things in a coherent way. This is precisely what the concept of a 
> composite web service is targeted at.
> 
> If you restrict the concept of Web service to the single entrypoint 
> case, you `solve' one problem (what is meant by a Web service's URI for 
> example) but leave unanswered the larger scale issues.
> 
> Frank
> 
> On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 10:22  AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> 
> > "Francis McCabe" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com> writes:
> >>
> >> This proposal is only going to fly technically if we also grasp the
> >> composite service nettle.
> >
> > I'm sorry but I don't understand; can you elaborate please?
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
> >

Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 21:02:22 UTC