- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:29:20 -0400
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 06:06:11PM +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > This raises an interesting process question for me- as far as I > can tell there is no new information now from the time we made > the decisions that are currently spec'ed. So should we be > discussing it etc. etc.? Some people don't like it, but if we > don't have some process then its a waste of time going to the > F2Fs as those decisions are likely to be much more contentious > in the wider group as F2F has like 10-20 people and this list > has a lot. So if we re-open everything clearly its non-productive > to go to the F2F. Well, prior to my bringing it up, I hadn't heard it mentioned that targetResource introduces an implementation detail into an interface. I think DavidB's printer example showed the maintenance issue that arises because of that. Some people even agree with me on that point (gasp! 8-). Not that I feel that targetResource needs to be removed though; I just think it needs to be constrained to identify something other than a runtime resource (i.e. the implementation detail), perhaps like a "serviceGroup" or something, which has no relationship to the resources manipulated, but instead just serves to tie together services via a common name. MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 08:24:18 UTC