- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:49:21 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Matt Long <mlong@phalanxsys.com>
- cc: "'WS-Desc WG (Public)'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Matt, one of the issues is that you cannot just pass a URL as a
pointer to a service, you need the service QName, too. And the
QName by itself is not sufficient either because you may not know
where a WSDL definition of that QName is located.
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
http://www.systinet.com/
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Matt Long wrote:
>
> What issues(s) do multi-service WSDLs present?
>
>
> -Matt Long
> Phalanx Systems, LLC
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 2:47 PM
> > To: WS-Desc WG (Public)
> > Subject: Fw: issue: service type
> >
> >
> > I posted this a while back, but there was literally no discussion
> > that I can recall. Is this issue so boring??
> >
> > Also related is the following:
> > <issue id="issue-multiple-services">
> > <head>Should a single WSDL file only define one service?</head>
> > WSDL 1.1 suppports having multiple services in a single WSDL
> > file. This has caused confusion amongst users.
> > <source>Sanjiva Weerawarana</source>
> > </issue>
> >
> > Anyone with opinions or can I resolve it myself? ;-)
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
> > To: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 6:29 AM
> > Subject: issue: service type
> >
> >
> > > I would like to open discussion on the following issue:
> > >
> > > <issue id="issue-service-type">
> > > <head>Should we have an abstract view of a service?</head>
> > > WSDL defines a service as a collection of ports, but there is no
> > > abstract analog.
> > > <source>Sanjiva Weerawarana</source>
> > > </issue>
> > >
> > >
> > > Sanjiva.
> > >
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2002 11:07:25 UTC