[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsdm] [OMod] William's AI: endpoint -> service
Hi Igor, > I propose to replace it with a statement "The definition > if the endpoint in WSDL is unabiguous and identifiable by > a URI. This specification is based on this endpoint definition." How about "This specification defines an endpoint as what is described by a <port> element in a WSDL document." We can add "unambiguously" in front of "defines" in the first sentence if you'd like but I don't think it really ads anything to the meaning of the sentence. As far the the URI, I just want to make sure I understand what you mean. Do you mean that we could work out a way to assign a URI to each port element? And that our spec will do this? If this is what you mean, then we can add the sentence: "The specification provides a way to assign a URI to each endpoint." Regards, William > -----Original Message----- > From: Sedukhin, Igor S [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com] > Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 10:36 AM > To: VAMBENEPE,WILLIAM (HP-Cupertino,ex1); wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [wsdm] [OMod] William's AI: endpoint -> service > > > I am saying that definition of an endpoint is unique, samle > applies to services and interfaces, yes. > > I think dealing with runtime ambiguity of an endpoint ans its > implementations has to be the business of the manager. MOWS > spec can be normatively defined against concept definitions > and not the runtime mess. > > [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?).] > > So, let's build good management software that can make it > happen :). Spec does not need to be intimately involved with > such intrications. > > Anyway, the discussion was about the statement [> > > [Nevertheless, the notion of endpoint is relatively > > unambiguous.]] > > I propose to replace it with a statement "The definition if > the endpoint in WSDL is unabiguous and identifiable by a URI. > This specification is based on this endpoint definition." > > -- 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: Friday, October 31, 2003 1:04 PM > To: Sedukhin, Igor S; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org > 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. > > > 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]