Re: [wsrp-wsia] Issue #51 - Naming scheme

[Richard Cieply <CIEPLY@de.ibm.com>]

Hi Rich,

I would choose a different order for the bindings like:
WSRP.v1.ServiceDescription.Binding.SOAP.
This seems to be more consistent with WSRP.v1.Markup.PortType.
Furthermore it is more efficient for the search.
I think one search use case could be to find _all_ ServiceDescription
bindings no matter what transport they use and then choose the one that is
compatible with the one the consumer supports.
Therefor I would propose a slightly changed scheme:

SPEC.VERSION.FACTOR.TYPE.TYPESPECIFIC

where type is PortType|Binding and type specific is SOAP, DIME, MIME,
whatever we may have...

One additional question arises for me here:
How should we reflect secure/unsecure bindings like HTTP vs. HTTPS.
The binding definition in the WSDL would remain the same for both. The only
distinction between secure/unsecure bindings is the protocol identifier in
the
location attribute of the ../wsdl/soap:address element of the port
definition.

Richard




|---------+---------------------------->
|         |           Rich             |
|         |           Thompson/Watson/I|
|         |           BM@IBMUS         |
|         |                            |
|         |           10/07/2002 07:20 |
|         |           PM               |
|         |                            |
|---------+---------------------------->
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                                                                  |
  |       To:       wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org                                                                                                   |
  |       cc:                                                                                                                                        |
  |       Subject:  [wsrp-wsia] Issue #51 - Naming scheme                                                                                            |
  |                                                                                                                                                  |
  |                                                                                                                                                  |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|








While this issue explicitly raised how the naming scheme should be chosen
for use when publishing to UDDI, it is important to consider the naming
scheme for the factors/bindings. Draft v0.7 uses this scheme:

          SpecIindicator '.' VersionNumber '.' FactorName '.'
(DistinguishingFactor '.') WSDLname

as in:
 WSRP.v1.Markup.PortType
 WSRP.v1.ServiceDescription.SOAP.Binding

To me this provides the scoping in the right order
(spec/version/factor/WSDLDescriptionPortion).

Proposed resolution: Accept v0.7 naming scheme



----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>