RE: [uddi-dev] Multiple access points II

[Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>]

Spot on!

I agree with you. I would make two services -- especially since they each
have their own wsdl file.

Anne

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Sterk [mailto:paul.sterk@sun.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 1:52 PM
> To: Von Riegen, Claus
> Cc: xws-regrep-dev-all@sun.com; uddi-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [uddi-dev] Multiple access points II
>
>
>
> Claus,
>
> Thanks for your response.  To conclude then, a UDDI
> businessService can be composed of 1 or more service endpoint
> URLs.  So, when doing programmatic searches against the Registry,
> you will first have to find the businessService and then find the
> bindingTemplate that points to the particular service
> endpoint through a tModel.
>
> The next conclusion is that it is a design decision whether or
> not each businessService implements just one WSDL spec and has
> just one service end-point.  It can definately have more than one
> bindingTemplate for indicating other tech specs and
> classifications. I just think this is more intuitive for
> businessService to have one service end-point URL.
>
> To use the example below, I think it is more intuitive for the
> user to see two businessService entries, one for BOM Explode and
> one for BOM Implode since each has a different service contract
> (WSDL) and service end-point URL.
>
> businessService     Binding Template
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> BOM Implode      Service end-point -> http://hostname1/BOMI
>                              tModel                 -> bomi.wsdl
>
> BOM Explode      Service end-point  -> http://hostname2/BOME
>                              tModel                 -> bome.wsdl
>
> rather than this:
>
> businessService     Binding Template
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> BOM                    BOM Implode -> http://hostname1/BOMI
>                              tModel             -> bomi.wsdl
>                              BOM Explode -> http://hostname2/BOME
>                              tModel             -> bome.wsdl
>
> But again this is a design decision.
>
> Paul
>
>
> "Von Riegen, Claus" wrote:
>
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > The answer is the same as the one for your previous question:
> there is no technical limitation on the type of bindingTemplates
> your want to group within one businessService. Though, it migth a
> good modeling approach to separate bindingTemplates that
> implement different Web service types.
> >
> > Finding a specific bindingTemplate is carried out by using the
> find_binding API and putting the wanted tModel in the
> find_binding's tModelBag. Thus, you can programmatically find
> only bindingTemplates that implemented bomExplode or bomImplode,
> respectively - independently of the modeling approach
> > used.
> >
> > I don't have any experience with JAXR. Whether this works in
> JAXR or not depends on how the mapping to the UDDI APIs is defined.
> >
> > Claus von Riegen, SAP
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Sterk [mailto:paul.sterk@sun.com]
> > Sent: Freitag, 7. März 2003 02:30
> > To: uddi-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: [uddi-dev] Multiple access points II
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Second question regarding multiple access points per service. A
> proposal has come up to allow someone to register a service and
> have multiple accessPoints for the service.  The issue here is
> that each accessPoint points to a different service.
> >
> > Let me give an example:
> >
> > The service is registered as Bill of Materials.  It has two
> accessPoints:
> >
> > Bill of Materials Explode
> > http://hostname/bomExplode
> >
> > Bill of Materials Implode
> > http//hostname/bomImplode
> >
> > These are two different services with different associated WSDL docs.
> >
> > I am personally uncomfortable with this model because I believe
> that each businessService should be mapped to one service
> implementation. I feel that BOMExplode and BOMImplode are two
> different services and should be registered separately.
> >
> > However, I would like here what your experience and opinions
> are in this area.
> >
> > If this model is acceptable, how do you find a specific
> accessPoint programmtically (JAXR) in UDDI v2.0?  Do you use the
> tModelInstanceDetails object?
> >
> > Any feedback in this regard would be very helpful.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Paul
>
>