RE: "interface" attribute info item on service component

FTR, I recorded these questions as CR047, CR048, and CR049.

 

I also don't see anything conceptually broken with a service that points
to an interface which, even after inheritance, doesn't contain any
operations.  Not terribly useful, but there are many similarly useless
ways to use WSDL.

 

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html?view=normal#CR047

 

 

________________________________

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Ramkumar Menon
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 10:21 PM
To: Rogers, Tony
Cc: Arthur Ryman; www-ws-desc@w3.org; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: "interface" attribute info item on service component

 

Thanks Tony, Arthur. That clarifies things a lot.

regards,

Ram

 

On 5/29/06, Rogers, Tony <Tony.Rogers@ca.com> wrote: 

As far as the bindings referenced by endpoints, no, these need not refer
to interfaces. If you read about "reusable" bindings in the Primer
you'll see that there's a good case for using bindings that do not refer
to interfaces - that's what Arthur was referring to by "generic"
bindings. 

 

Tony Rogers

CA, Inc

Senior Architect, Development

tony.rogers@ca.com

co-chair UDDI TC at OASIS

co-chair WS-Desc WG at W3C

 

________________________________

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org on behalf of Ramkumar Menon
Sent: Tue 30-May-06 13:41
To: Arthur Ryman
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: "interface" attribute info item on service component

 

Hi Arthur,

 

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

Maybe I was not clear in my question (1) .

I was explicitly referring to the "interface" attribute on the <service>
nodes. Woudnt the interfaces that are referred to as attributes on the
<service> nodes need to have atleast one operation within them, either
declared / inherited ? Would it make sense to explicitly state this in
the spec ? 

Similarly, for the second question, I was referring to those bindings
that are referred to from within the <endpoint> node as an attribute -
wdnt these referred bindings need to be referring to an interface
mandatorily ? Again, if it makes sense, would it better if we explicitly
state ithis in the spec ? 

 

I would also appreciate your thoughts on point (3).

 

Thanks again!

 

rgds,

Ram

 

On 5/29/06, Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com> wrote: 


Ram, 

It might be useful to have an interface that just defined faults, so -1
to requiring one or more operations. 

An endpoint refers to a single binding. If the binding refers to an
interface, it must be the same as the service's interface. Note that
generic "interfaceless" bindings are possible. 

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/ 
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca 



"Ramkumar Menon" <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com > 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 

05/23/2006 02:36 PM 

To

www-ws-desc@w3.org 

cc

 

Subject

"interface" attribute info item on service component

 

 

 

 





Three fundamental questions.

Would it be useful to add a clause for the <service> component stating
The "interface" attribute information item should point to an 
interface that has non zero number of "operation" element information
items within it.
If not, we cd as well have service components that could possible be
empty, and allow them to extend other service components, reflecting 
the same semantics we have defined for interface inheritance -
considering that one service component is related to exactly one
interface.

Am I right if I state that if all "binding" attribute info items that 
had been defined on the endpoint node should have been associated with
an  "interface" attribute information item? What does it mean to be
otherwise ?

Moreover, if the service component has an interface attribute info 
item that extends from two other interfaces, can the endpoint defined
within it refer to bindings that were defined for the parent
interfaces ? If yes/no, should this be reflected in the core language
spec ?

rgds,
Ram
-- 
Shift to the left, shift to the right!
Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!

-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor






-- 
Shift to the left, shift to the right!
Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!

-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor 




-- 
Shift to the left, shift to the right!
Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!

-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor