6 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.regrepRe: [regrep] Make ServiceBinding an E...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Farrukh Najmi | Jul 18, 2008 4:31 pm | |
| Farrukh Najmi | Jul 30, 2008 9:56 am | |
| Farrukh Najmi | Jul 30, 2008 12:06 pm | |
| Farrukh Najmi | Jul 31, 2008 6:43 am | |
| Farrukh Najmi | Jul 31, 2008 6:49 am |  .png |
| Breininger, Kathryn R | Jul 31, 2008 4:32 pm |
| Subject: | Re: [regrep] Make ServiceBinding an ExtrinsicObject subtype withindependent lifecycle | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Farrukh Najmi (farr...@wellfleetsoftware.com) | |
| Date: | Jul 31, 2008 6:49:30 am | |
| List: | org.oasis-open.lists.regrep | |
| Attachments: | ||
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/serviceModel>
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/serviceModel>
Please review the page so discuss in our next meeting as a planned agenda item. Thank you.
-- Regards, Farrukh Najmi