- From: Amelia A. Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:00:30 -0400
- To: fred.carter@amberpoint.com
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
+1, especially to the final point made. On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:23:44 -0700 Fred Carter <fred.carter@amberpoint.com> wrote: > Suppose there are two interfaces, printing & printermgmt. Printing > contains the operation "print" which returns a job id. printermgmt > contains, amongst others, the cancelJob operation. > > If I print to some print endpiing with a targetResource and later > decide to cancel it, I need to know which thing on which to perform > the cancelJob operation. In this case, the 'targetResource' > identifies the printing subsystem. Depending upon the enterprise's > choices, this may be a server, a printer, a farm of printers in some > room with a common manager or spooler, whatever -- we don't know. We > just know that two endpoints employing these interfaces refer to the > same 'collected stuff' -- that identified by the 'targetResource'. > > (Arguments about bad interface decisions are not terribly relevant. > There will always be cases where there are different interfaces.) > > If, OTOH, one could put the 'printing' and 'printermgmt' interfaces > into the same service, this wouldn't be a problem. But it is in the > current thinking. > > IMHO: This issue exists ONLY because of the "service contains a > single interface" decision. > > > -- > Fred Carter / AmberPoint, Inc. > > mailto:fred.carter@amberpoint.com > tel:+1.510.433.6525 fax:+1.510.663.6301 > -- Amelia A. Lewis Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Friday, 20 June 2003 14:59:46 UTC