Re: Should a Service Implement a Single PortType?

 Sanjiva, 
 I also suggested that <definitions> with a name could be such a 
serviceType (or serviceGroup), what do you think about this 
approach? 8-)
 The only drawback of this is that we wouldn't be able to specify
more serviceTypes in one WSDL file. But then, in Java for
example, only one public class can be specified in one file, so I
think this has some pluses, too.
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

 > I disagree that a service should be restricted to a single
 > portType. There are lots of services which are naturally
 > best represented by multiple interfaces (portTypes)- having
 > a description language that cannot describe those naturally
 > is broken IMO. If we restrict to multiple portTypes, why
 > not go all the way down to one operation? After all, we can
 > do everything with just that too .. ;-).
 > 
 > Jacek, you make a point below about an abstract analog of
 > a service that I personally like:
 > 
 > >  If, on the other hand, we really want to group multiple
 > > interfaces into one, the logical "one" should be called something
 > > like serviceGroup or something.
 > 
 > I use the term "serviceType" for this- basically a name for
 > the set of portTypes that comprise a service's function. Then,
 > one or more services can support that service type.
 > 
 > Sanjiva.
 > 
 > ----- Original Message -----
 > From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
 > To: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
 > Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
 > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 6:50 PM
 > Subject: Re: Should a Service Implement a Single PortType?
 > 
 > 
 > > Hi,
 > >  I second this request because now the WSDL service is really
 > > somewhat too general.
 > >  If a service's ports were to implement the same portType, that
 > > would truly mean different accesspoints to the same service.
 > >  If, on the other hand, we really want to group multiple
 > > interfaces into one, the logical "one" should be called something
 > > like serviceGroup or something.
 > >  I can see the meaning and usefullness of the relationship
 > > between different accesspoints to the same portType, but the
 > > relationship between two portTypes in a service is everything but
 > > clear.
 > >  I think the WSDL <definitons> (if named) can successfully imply
 > > the general relationship between the different services defined
 > > therein, so we don't need the general service construct.
 > >  Best regards,
 > >
 > >                    Jacek Kopecky
 > >
 > >                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
 > >                    http://www.systinet.com/
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Arthur Ryman wrote:
 > >
 > >  > In WSDL 1.1 a service is a set of ports. Each port could in principle
 > be
 > >  > bound to a different portType. I think this is too general. It would be
 > >  > simpler if every port in a service was bound to a single portType.
 > >  >
 > >  > In practice this was not possible because the binding rules for HTTP
 > GET
 > >  > and POST required slightly different portTypes than SOAP. However, if
 > >  > this problem is fixed, then should we require all ports to uses the
 > same
 > >  > portType within a service?
 > >  >
 > >  > This is really not much of a restriction, since you can easily define
 > >  > multiple services and can reuse common types and messages via an
 > import.
 > >  >
 > >  > Having a service implement a single portType would give it more
 > >  > cohesion.
 > >  >
 > >  > -- Arthur Ryman
 > >  >
 >

Received on Tuesday, 2 April 2002 11:40:37 UTC