[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [stp-dev] Re: Follow on meeting about the Hybrid Model
- From: Adrian Mos <adrian.mos@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:11:34 +0200
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
Well, I assumed that, hence my question about the PortType /
Usually a service has a collection of endpoint. Each endpoint has a
binding, and each binding has an interface. The interface is the
abstract model, the binding has the protocol informations and the
endpoint has the location information.
Yes, this in now representable in the intermediate metamodel
I'm not sure if you mean that the same process can be used with
different bindings (it actually only uses the abstract model) or if
you want to bind it to real endpoints.
In the first case, I'd say there is a confusion between binding /
interface. In the second case, the process should reference an
endpoint (with the location information).
Sorry If I missed something...
It's important to understand that the intermediate metamodel is meant
as a "bridge" between editors with elements having the role of
conceptual transport between different deveopment spaces. You are
right that for an execution platform it is eventually the endpoint
tat is going to be accessed but this is something that is not
represented in the model, on purpose. The model wants to capture as
much of the user's intent as possible without going down into too
much detail about how this is going to work because that depends on
the particular technology.
In SCA, the endpoint is defined as part of the binding for a service
which is quite different from the "standard" web services approach
where the endpoint specifies it's binding. In any case, the intent of
a user is to call a service through a binding and this is how things
look in JBI and SCA. The fact that there are endpoints involved in
this is not something that should be expressed in the model as the
model is more concern with preserving the intent, not describe the
runtime functionality of a platform or other.
Endpoints are in the model because for people doing service creation,
they are explicit entities that will have properties associated to
them. In face, in any given editor (SCA, JBI) this information may be
used if desired, as part of the philosophy behind the metamodel is to
allow this kind of flexibility and usage.
Hope this clarifies things a bit more.