- From: Amelia A. Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:37:48 -0400
- To: Dave Hollander <dmh@contivo.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:00:20 -0700 Dave Hollander <dmh@contivo.com> wrote: > I agree that there would be some simplifications if multiple > interfaces were allowed, however these are easily overcome by > creating a new service that provides a single interface to all > of the others. But not when it is not reasonable to aggregate these interfaces into a single interface, as when (for instance) a pub/sub notification interface exists as well as a client/server submission interface and a client/server management interface. Likewise, in the case of a management interface and a submission interface, these functions may be strictly separated (always accessed at different endpoints). Forcing them into an aggregate requires the designer to either place both on a single endpoint, or to enable both endpoints to receive (and forward?) messages that should have been sent to the other, or (permissibly?) to actually implement only a portion of an interface within each endpoint. In other words, aggregation *cannot* solve the problem of multiplicity of service elements introduced by the single interface per service proposal. Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2003 10:37:01 UTC