[uddi-spec] WSDL TN: Issue 1 - mapping between wsdl:service anduddi:businessService

[John Colgrave <colgrave@hursley.ibm.com>]

I do not agree there is a fundamental difference between the grouping
offered by a uddi:businessService and a wsdl:service.  The UDDI
specification describes a businessService as describing "a collection of
related Web services offered by an organization described by a
businessEntity." and section 1.6.2 describes a fairly loose logical grouping
of Web services.  I think it is perfectly valid to have bindingTemplates
within a single businessService that correspond to ports that in turn
correspond to different portTypes, with the assumption that there is some
relationship among them.

Given that WS-I says very little regarding wsdl:services I am not inclined
to attempt to invent any UDDI-specific Best Practice in this area.  I quite
agree that a WSDL Best Practice independent of UDDI would be a good thing.

The other dimension to consider is the programming language/tool one.  This
is a case where it is particularly relevant.  I can only speak with any
confidence about Java and in Java there is a specification, JAX-RPC, that
includes a mapping from WSDL to Java.  The mapping of a WSDL service is to a
service class which acts as a factory for the things corresponding to the
ports etc. so the collection of the ports is exposed to the Java programming
model.  You cannot arbitrarily rearrange the aggregation of ports without
changing the programming model for that service.

Two final factors are that not keeping the 1-1 correspondence will make it
harder to discover related (in the WSDL sense!) ports and to generate
deployment WSDL.

Given all of this, I propose leaving the mapping largely the way it is now,
mapping a wsdl:service to exactly one businessService.  I am in favour of
adding the extra restriction that only a single wsdl:service can be mapped
to a uddi:businessService.

John