RE: proposal for restricting a service to a single interface

+1, Kenneth.  I went back and re-read my earlier message and in fact I didn't actually say this part, which is the real answer to James' question. :)  

--G

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kenneth Chiu [mailto:chiuk@cs.indiana.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 3:47 PM
> To: James M Snell
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: proposal for restricting a service to a single interface
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the intent would be that you define one interface
> that inherits from those multiple portTypes.
> 
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, James M Snell wrote:
> 
> > I understand the motivation for this, but I'm a bit 
> confused... if y'all
> > add this limitation, how do I describe a single service 
> that does in fact
> > implement multiple portTypes (e.g. OGSA services)
> >
> > - James M Snell
> >   jasnell@us.ibm.com
> >   http://www.ibm.com
> >   (877) 511-5082 / Office
> >   930-1979 / Tie Line
> >
> >
> >
> > "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
> > Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> > 04/21/2003 03:39 PM
> >
> > To
> > <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> > cc
> >
> > Subject
> > proposal for restricting a service to a single interface
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Following up on the action item I have, I'd like to propose
> > the following:
> >
> > - Require all <port>s within a <service> element to implement
> >   exactly the same interface. Thus, each <port> is an alternate
> >   implementation of the same interface.
> > - The interface will be indicated with a new attribute:
> >     <service interface="qname"> ... </service>
> > - As with any interface in WSDL 1.2, this interface could
> >   have extended any number of other interfaces.
> >
> > I will soon send the updated binding proposal which takes this
> > into account to dramatically simplify the binding stuff. If
> > this doesn't get accepted then I'll re-do the binding proposal.
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2003 16:45:06 UTC