MHonArc v2.5.2 -->

















wsia message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [Elist Home]








Subject: [wsia] RE: [wsrp] WSXL paper update




From: Eilon Reshef <eilon.reshef@webcollage.com>
To: 'Rich Thompson' <richt2@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:19:07 -0400






Title: Message



Thanks. 
 
BTW, I really liked the new 
write-up.
 
Another question or two (I hope it's 
OK...):
 
The getServiceDocument and hasPortType seem to be very 
"generic" in the sense that they could apply to essentially every Web Service 
(not necessarily a WSIA one). Pragmatists may even argue that it's somewhat of a 
more sensible model than the registry model (UDDI) (especially the 
getServiceDocument one, and especially if it can be provided via a simple HTTP 
GET request). Do those definitions come from other IBM work (is this related to 
IBM's dynamic Web Services invocation stuff?)? Do you know if such an approach 
has been actively promoted anywhere else in the Web Services "world"? 

 
How do you think that WSIA should handle this topic - 
should we define such interfaces and state that they should be propagated to the 
lower parts of the stack? Should we wait for the lower parts of the stack to 
support it (I hope not)?
 
Any particular thoughts on the lifecycle management 
along the same lines? Were you guys aware of any "generic" Web Services notion 
that captures stateful Web Services? Should we define those interfaces and 
basically explicitly note that we expect the lower part of the stack to adapt or 
refine them? Or maybe are we (WSIA) the right part of the 
stack?