Re: Draft wording for targetResource attribute

Sanjiva, 

I'm trying to see if the intended meaning of targetResource is such that
identical targetResource value on multiple services is the same as a
single old multi-interface service. The only relationship defined in the
old services what the interchangeability of ports with the same
interface.

Anyhow, I think that my explanation below makes it clearer what
targetResource means, even though the case may seldom occur.

Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect
                   Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Tue, 2003-06-10 at 15:25, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> I think this is fine, but IMHO its a far out edge-case .. thus I
> would rather have us define equivalence for endpoints (ports)
> within a single <service> element rather than talking about stuff
> across different <service>s.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
> To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
> Cc: "WS-Description WG" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Draft wording for targetResource attribute
> 
> 
> >
> > David,
> >
> > I've fought on one telcon for the wording, whatever it ends up being, to
> > include the following explanation (not necessarily in the same words):
> >
> > Different ports in two services with the same interface and the same
> > targetResource are interchangeable in the same sense as different ports
> > within one service with that interface and targetResource. I.e. from the
> > point of view of the ports, it doesn't really matter if I write
> >
> > <service name="a" interface="i" targetResource="foo">
> >    <port name="x">...</port>
> > </service>
> > <service name="b" interface="i" targetResource="foo">
> >    <port name="y">...</port>
> > </service>
> >
> > or
> >
> > <service name="c" interface="i" targetResource="foo">
> >    <port name="x">...</port>
> >    <port name="y">...</port>
> > </service>
> >
> > It seemed to me that there was general agreement to this.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> >                    Jacek Kopecky
> >
> >                    Senior Architect
> >                    Systinet Corporation
> >                    http://www.systinet.com/
> >

Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2003 10:02:43 UTC