- From: Fred Carter <fred.carter@amberpoint.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:02:45 -0700
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Thus quoth Fred Carter (~ 20-Jun-03 11:23 AM ~)... > > Thus quoth Sergey Beryozkin (~ 20-Jun-03 5:19 AM ~)... > > 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 (Sorry -- must learn to proofread -- s/endpiing/endpoint/ > 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. (meaning: But it is [a problem] 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
Received on Friday, 20 June 2003 15:02:41 UTC