[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] Make ServiceBinding an ExtrinsicObject subtype withindependent lifecycle
As I started implementing the proposed changes in my project I realized that it is not a good idea to make the 4 new types (Service, ServiceEndpoint, ServiceBinding and ServiceInterface) be sub-classes of ExtrinsicObject. The reason is that this mixes up the WSDL objectType with the objectTypes of the 4 new metadata classes. We need to keep WSDL as a separate objectType (under ExtrinsicObject). A WSDL ExtrinsicObject should be associated with any of the 4 Service related metadata classes. This is best done via a HasWSDL association which should really be defined within the WSDL Profile for RegRep4. BTW I am working in parrallel on proposed changes for WSDL Profile and will make it available for TC review later. So again I have updated the wiki page such that the 4 classes are no longer derived from ExtrinsicObject. BTW, this experience shows the value of implementing proposals as we define them so that we learn of mis-steps early and take corrective action. Thanks in advance for your review and feedback. Lastly, I will be traveling starting tomorrow and will be back in office on August 8. I will not check email more than once a day in that period. Thanks. Farrukh Najmi wrote: > > I have updated the wiki page at: > > <http://wiki.oasis-open.org/regrep/documents/plan/regrep4/serviceModel> > > to reflect changes proposed by Oliver. I have also added a concrete > XML Schema for the model. > One additional change is that Service now composes ServiceEndpoints as > a ServiceEndpoint is not shared across services. > > Please review this revised proposal and provide feedback. Thank you. > > Farrukh Najmi wrote: >> Dear colleagues, >> >> Here is the external feedback I received privately from Oliver Newell >> of MIT Lincoln Labs: >> >> " >> I looked over the proposed Service Model changes for regrep and had a >> thought on the ServiceBinding >> >> From section 2.7.1 of the WSDL 2.0 spec >> >> "Conversely, a Binding >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/#component-Binding> component which >> omits any operation-specific binding details and any fault binding >> details MAY omit specifying an interface. Binding >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/#component-Binding> components that do >> not specify an interface MAY be used to specify operation-independent >> binding details for Service >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/#component-Service> components with >> different interfaces. That is, such Binding >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/#component-Binding> components are >> reusable across one or more interfaces" >> >> I think the idea behind this is be able to specify generic binding >> mechanisms instead of having to repeat them for every service, as was >> typically done in WSDL 1.1. I think the bindings possible contain >> more information than just 'SOAP' or 'HTTP', but variants of those >> with different security settings, message exchange patterns, etc.. >> So perhaps bindings do have their own independent lifecyle? If so, I >> guess the ServiceEndpoint would have a 'hasBinding' association to an >> independent ServiceBinding object? >> " >> >> I think The quote from section 2.7.1 is pretty clear in stating that >> under certain restrictions a Binding may be reused across services. >> Therefor I agree with Oliver's suggestion that we keep ServiceBinding >> in RegRep 4 as a separate top level class with its independent >> lifecycle and relate it to a Service via 'HasBinding" association. >> Such a class should be derived from ExtrinsicObject (so it can have >> wsdl attached). >> >> TC members please comment on email list. I would like to get approval >> of this change request via email if possible given that it is so >> obvious an improvement. >> Thanks. >> >> >> Farrukh Najmi wrote: >>> Dear Colleagues, >>> >>> Managing services and data sets produced/consumed by services is a >>> very important use case for RegRep. >>> >>> I have been working on harmonizing various Service Information model >>> that are dominant today. >>> The experience suggests that perhaps we should consider improving >>> our ServiceInformationModel >>> for RegRep 4 to better reflect the needs of the user community. >>> >>> I have started a wiki page on this topic at: >>> >>> <http://wiki.oasis-open.org/regrep/documents/plan/regrep4/serviceModel> >>> >>> Please review the page so discuss in our next meeting as a planned >>> agenda item. >>> Thank you. >>> >>> >> >> > > -- Regards, Farrukh Najmi Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]