RE: proposal for restricting a service to a single interface

Yeah, Sanjiva explained it to me using short, simple words that I could 
understand ;-)

- James M Snell
  jasnell@us.ibm.com
  http://www.ibm.com
  (877) 511-5082 / Office
  930-1979 / Tie Line



Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com> 
04/22/2003 11:18 AM

To
James M Snell/Fresno/IBM@IBMUS
cc
"'www-ws-desc@w3.org'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Subject
RE: proposal for restricting a service to a single interface







Hi James!

I think the idea behind the change is that when you think of "a web 
service" you typically imagine a coherent set of APIs which, though they 
might be accessible via different bindings, are consistent in all cases.

Having a "service" be something that could implement interface A (but not 
B) on one binding and interface B (but not A) on another binding doesn't 
seem very useful unless you like confusion. :)  With this change, a 
service would be an entity which performs a particular set of operations 
via one or more bindings, rather than a potentially disconnected set of 
operations and bindings.

Myself, I like it.  Interestingly, I believe the Grid guys are psyched 
about this change.

--G

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James M Snell [mailto:jasnell@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 12:49 AM
> To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: proposal for restricting a service to a single interface
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
>