Re: targetResource and relationships

Sergey,

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 16:42:53 +0100
"Sergey Beryozkin" <sberyozkin@zandar.com> wrote:
> > In other words, aggregation *cannot* solve the problem of
> > multiplicity of service elements introduced by the single interface
> > per service proposal.
> 
> I think it's a targetResource attribute which "introduces" a
> multiplicity rather than a single interface restriction. Multiple
> interfaces per service would still make it possible creating multiple
> service descriptions per every targetResource, nor they would prevent
> using a single interface idiom, that is having a separate service per
> a submission and management interface, for example.

I largely agree.  The *requirement* that each service have a single
interface, though, is what drives the multiplicity (in my opinion).

> It just seems that allowing for multiple interfaces per service would
> make it easier to apply @targetResource for the purposes of
> discovering the*alternative ways only* of talking to the same resource
> (as a matter of policy/best practices approach, etc).

Agreed.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com

Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2003 12:00:54 UTC