W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > March 2005

Re: Why do we have a component model?

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 21:25:53 +0600
Message-ID: <013601c523f3$204ba2a0$8ec13109@LANKABOOK>
To: <paul.downey@bt.com>, <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Hi Paul,

> seems to me that we spend most of our time trying to fix bugs in the
> model, in particular the area of composition.

Can you back that up with real info please? I'd be impressed if you could
show that we spend most of our time on component model problems. IIRC
very few of our LC comments are about the component model *per se*; of
course they have component model implications as that's how WSDL is

If you want to claim that the Z notation stuff has brought up lots of
well, then the problem is that we decided to retrofit an abstraction on top
an abstraction.. not the other way around. Record will show that I was
doing the Z notation from day one.

>The engineer in me wants to find a
> simpler solution rather than continue to add more sticky tape and chewing

Well so do I. I hardly find this particular assault on the component model a
good reason to throw it all away and start with a new mess.

As was re-asserted at the F2F, the spec as its written was explicitely not
written for end-users (read as people implementing services) but rather for
implementors (read as people implementing WSDL tools/runtimes, SOAP
stacks, etc.). The component model provides a degree of rigour to that; so
read with the runtime and tooling engineer in you rather than the Web
author engineer in you. I know you have at least two engineers in you! ;-)

> i'm drawn to the idea of spec which is focused on the document rather than
> processing model, even if that meant losing import (but keeping a lexical

Been there, done that. Again, with all due respect, you need to read the
archives and see how we got here. I personally was against adding import/
include but lost. Such is the world of design by committee; somethings you
like, some that you don't. The other option is design in a closed room;
you prefer that (esp. if you didn't happen to be in the room)?

Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2005 15:26:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:48 UTC