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
Part of the reason for factoring things into the portTypes as you see them
in the position paper has to do with reuse. We can see both the
WSXLServiceDescription and WSXLLifecycle as having applicability in a
broader sense than just WSIA. If the functionality can push lower in the
web services stack, that would be great. If not, perhaps they can be
generalized (likely just a name change) so that many web services will
publish them as available ports. I think our need is proceeding this work
and should therefore look to provide a good model for both cases.
"Eilon Reshef"
<eilon.reshef@webc To: Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
ollage.com> cc: <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>,
<wsia@lists.oasis-open.org>
04/12/2002 05:19 Subject: RE: [wsrp] WSXL paper update
PM
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?