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 Friday, 29 March 2002 07:50:17 UTC