OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsdm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [wsdm] [OMod] William's AI: endpoint -> service



So you're saying that endpoints are unambiguous because each endpoint is
defined by one <port> element in a WSDL document and that one can generate a
URI to identify this endpoint (through some kind of QName to URI algorithm)?
I agree with this, but then the exact same thing is true for services and
they too are unambiguous at that level. But there is still some ambiguity
left (when you implement your management software and you see an incoming
message and don't know what endpoint it goes to, how do you increment a
"number of messages received" counter?). It might be a different level of
ambiguity but it is not as unambiguous as, say, an HTTP listener where only
one listener can be listening on one port on one machine.

William

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sedukhin, Igor S [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com] 
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 7:25 AM
> To: VAMBENEPE,WILLIAM (HP-Cupertino,ex1); wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsdm] [OMod] William's AI: endpoint -> service
> 
> 
> William,
> 
> Ok on most of your suggestions here. I'll take them and put 
> in the MOWS draft that I'm preparing today. 
> 
> [Well, then the notion of service is just as unambiguous, per 
> WSDL as well, isn't it? How is an endpoint uniquely 
> identified by a URI? I could have 2 endpoints listening at 
> the same address. And in some cases (see the conversation on 
> unique wire signatures that took places in WS-I BP and is now 
> taking place in W3C WS-desc) there is no way to tell what 
> endpoint a message is intended for. If endpoints were really 
> so unambiguous, this wouldn't be the case, would it?]
> 
> I'm talking about DEFINITION of an endpoint. That identifies 
> the concept of an endpoint for MOWS. That is very unique if 
> WSDL spec is followed and we do not try to accommodate misuse 
> of the spec in some stupid cases (that we all may have seen). 
> The definition of a port that belongs to a service in a 
> targetNamespace of a WSDL 1.1 document is unique. A URI may 
> identify that definition of a port = ednpoint.
> The runtime/dispatch intrications have nothing to do with the 
> definition itself.
> 
> -- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
> -- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: VAMBENEPE,WILLIAM (HP-Cupertino,ex1) [mailto:vbp@hp.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 9:14 PM
> To: Sedukhin, Igor S; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsdm] [OMod] William's AI: endpoint -> service
> 
> 
> Hi Igor,
> 
> Thanks for the review. See below for responses...
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sedukhin, Igor S [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 8:01 AM
> > To: VAMBENEPE,WILLIAM (HP-Cupertino,ex1); wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [wsdm] [OMod] William's AI: endpoint -> service
> > 
> > 
> > William,
> > 
> > I think your text is just fine with the exception of the following 
> > statement.
> > 
> > [The presence of a collection mechanism will also allow a 
> manager to 
> > access  a set of endpoints (representing a
> > service) as one entity. Finally, the MOWS specification 
> will identify  
> > in a non-normative way capabilities of a service and how 
> they can be 
> > derived from the capabilities of  the endpoints that compose them.]
> > 
> > I think it is too early to presume that we do collections and 
> > non-normative spec of managing web services in addition to 
> endpoints 
> > before january 2004. May be we need to discuss this with a larger 
> > group. I propose that we don't include those statements so far and 
> > adopt the rest of your text now.
> 
> I think support for collections is important but I agree that 
> this is a separate question from how endpoints map to 
> services and that this is to be discussed by the overall 
> group. How about rewording this as:
> 
> "One way a manager can be allowed to access a set of 
> endpoints (representing a service) as one entity would be 
> through a collection mechanism".
> 
> This way we don't say in this text whether or not there will 
> be a collection mechanism, but this reminds us to be careful, 
> when we define endpoints, to not do anything that would make 
> it impractical to group endpoints into services when and if a 
> collection mechanism is defined.
> 
> > Also a few minor corrections:
> > 
> > [dereferencable URL]
> > I think URL is always "dereferencable", URN may not be. So 
> saying just 
> > URL is sufficient.
> 
> OK.
> 
> > [Nevertheless, the notion of endpoint is  relatively 
> unambiguous.] I 
> > think it is just unambiguous per WSDL pec, isn't it? One important 
> > point is missing here is that an endpoint is uniquely 
> idenifiable by a 
> > URI and that counts towards being unabiguous.
> 
> Well, then the notion of service is just as unambiguous, per 
> WSDL as well, isn't it? How is an endpoint uniquely 
> identified by a URI? I could have 2 endpoints listening at 
> the same address. And in some cases (see the conversation on 
> unique wire signatures that took places in WS-I BP and is now 
> taking place in W3C WS-desc) there is no way to tell what 
> endpoint a message is intended for. If endpoints were really 
> so unambiguous, this wouldn't be the case, would it?
> 
> > [... such as UDDI, that do not use the same mechanism.] I think one 
> > important thing that is missing in that paragraph is the 
> following. I 
> > propose to add it.
> > "For visibility and other concerns, many WSDL documents may include 
> > descriptions of the same service with different endpoints. 
> In certain 
> > cases WSDL document may include a description of a service with 
> > endpoints offered by different providers." This applies to 
> both WSDL 
> > 1.1 and WSDL 2.0 equally. I believe this to be very important.
> 
> OK.
> 
> > [..WSDM MOWS specification defines endpoints..] It should 
> say "defines 
> > manageability of endpoints".
> 
> OK.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> William
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from 
> the roster of the OASIS TC), go to 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsdm/members/leav
e_workgroup.php.



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]