Re: Separate concepts for "service" and "targetResource?" (was RE: /service/@targetResource ?)

Walden Mathews wrote:

>
>>On the other hand, tying multiple services to some global, non-specific
>>resource to say they are all equivalent in some way, works for me, and
>>that's not something I can do given just the service QName. (Though, one
>>could say that I could use the service targetNamespace to the same effect)
>>    
>>
>
>Or do you mean tying multiple resources to some global, non-specific
>implementation, so that they can all behave the same?  Otherwise, all
>you have is a bunch of equivalent services, which means you have one
>service, and you still can't multiplex it over all the objects you want to.
>  
>
My intent is to tie multiple related service together, not at all talk 
about the resources behind them.

For the service to be stateless and the definition to be manageable the 
resource behind it has to be identified in the message, not in it's 
definition. That's best done using correlations (see BPEL, WSCI, et al). 
That way there's one service definition for each ATM in the world, and 
each ATM can act on any number of resources (bank accounts) including 
multiple accounts if necessary (transfer funds, multi statement, etc).

But then an ATM may offer multiple separate interfaces, for example, one 
for withdraw/deposit another for reviewing your stock portfolio or 
applying for a loan. Since each service implements one interface, it 
would have to be defined as multiple services which need to be somehow 
tied together. In this case the common name would be the ATM, not the 
bank or the account.

arkin

>Walden
>  
>

Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 15:46:39 UTC