RE: [regrep] Make ServiceBinding an ExtrinsicObject subtype withindependent lifecycle

["Breininger, Kathryn R" <kathryn.r.breininger@boeing.com>]

Thanks Farrukh! 



Kathryn Breininger
Manager, Release & Delivery Services
CIMS - Center for Information Management Services

MC 62-LC
425-965-0242 desk
425-512-4281 cell
425-237-4582 fax


-----Original Message-----
From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:farrukh@wellfleetsoftware.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 6:50 AM
To: ebXML Regrep
Subject: Re: [regrep] Make ServiceBinding an ExtrinsicObject subtype
withindependent lifecycle


For helping understand the service infomodel I have created the
following UML diagram. As usual it does not show attributes, but shows
only classes and their relationships. I will add it to wiki page once I
find out from OASIS how to add attachments to wiki.

HTH.

Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>
> 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/serviceMode
>> l>
>>
>> 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/serviceMo
>>>> del>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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