- From: Amelia A. Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 10:48:19 -0400
- To: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Fri, 30 May 2003 16:50:48 -0700 "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com> wrote: > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] > On > > > > Redundancy is *bad*. Specifying interface twice is *bad*. If it's > > going to happen at all, error-handling MUST be specified in > > sufficient detail that two processors faced with the same > > description report the same thing. > > I don't disagree with your other points, but want to point out that > there is a proposal on the table to eliminate the specification of an > interface (was portType) on the binding to eliminate the redundancy > between the service/@interface and binding/@interface. > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003May/0046.html It is possible that I don't understand the presentation, but my reaction to it is that it makes creation of a WSDL dramatically more complex, unless you're doing request/response over HTTP (which appears to be the "default" binding). So long as the binding element remains, and contains child operations, then the redundancy of interface specification (implicitly in binding; all that is removed is explicitness) and service/@interface remains as well. The advantage of 1.1 is that it made clear that linkages went precisely one step. Messages are linked to in portType/operation/{input|output|fault}. portType is linked to in binding. binding is linked to in service/port. In this revised model, so long as there is a binding element (useful for modularity and reuse), there is a redundancy of specification between service/@interface and the actual *content* of the binding, whether it has an @interface attribute of its own or not. This is again being represented as a simplification. I've been reading history of calendars this weekend; it puts me in mind of the "simplification" of the easter computus in Gregory XIII's Inter gravissimus. Labelling it as simpler ... isn't the same as offering something simpler. Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Monday, 2 June 2003 10:47:51 UTC