Re: FW: Proposal: A Registry Browser GUI tool

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@east.sun.com>]

What I meant by binding was a binding specification that would allow a service interface
to be
accesible from a specific technology or language in a standard way. Take the UDDI
example. It positions SOAP as the
prescribed way to define and access the UDDI service. A better alternative would have
been to specify
the interface in UML (as is the case in Registry Services spec) and then (possibly
outside the spec) define a
standard binding to SOAP and allow others to implement other bindings (e.g. LDAP etc).

Bindings provide flexibility but the spec still needs to say what is the required binding
for interoperability
reasons. In the ideal world the interoperable binding could be ebXML TRP Messaging. For
UDDI at
present the required binding for interoperability is some kinda SOAP.

Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM wrote:

> Expaaaaaanding:
>
> "Bindings to specific technologies belong in the TPA."
>
> I am using the term "bindings" to refer to the means of specifying, for
> example, what communication protocol is used with the messaging service for
> a given business relationship.
>
> Assume that the messaging service can be used with more than one
> communication protocol, communication security definition, etc.  What is
> needed is a means of specifying the name and parameters of the
> communication protocol to be used for a particular business relationship.
> This information cannot be specified in the message header because the
> message cannot flow without a communication protocol being in place.
> Therefore, the binding must be specified somewhere outside the messaging
> service.  The natural place is the TPA.  The transport section of the tpaML
> specifies what communication protocol and communication security parameters
> will be used for message exchanges under that TPA.
>
> What may be needed in the messaging service specification is some kind of
> abstract definition of how information is exchanged between the messaging
> service and the underlying transport level.
>
> Regards,
> Marty
>
> *************************************************************************************
>
> Martin W. Sachs
> IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
> P. O. B. 704
> Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
> 914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
> Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
> Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
> *************************************************************************************
>
> Rik Drummond <rvd2@worldnet.att.net> on 09/14/2000 05:40:02 PM
>
> To:
> cc:   Ebxml Transport <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>
> Subject:  RE: FW: Proposal: A Registry Browser GUI tool
>
> you might want to expand on what you mean here... best regards, rik
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 4:28 PM
> To: Rik Drummond
> Cc: Ebxml Transport
> Subject: Re: FW: Proposal: A Registry Browser GUI tool
>
> Bindings to specific technologies belong in the TPA.
>
> Regards,
> Marty
>
> ****************************************************************************
>
> *********
>
> Martin W. Sachs
> IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
> P. O. B. 704
> Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
> 914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
> Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
> Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
> ****************************************************************************
>
> *********
>
> Rik Drummond <rvd2@worldnet.att.net> on 09/14/2000 04:34:05 PM
>
> To:   Ebxml Transport <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>
> cc:
> Subject:  FW: Proposal: A Registry Browser GUI tool
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@east.sun.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 3:05 PM
> To: Farrukh Najmi
> Cc: David RR Webber; Nicholas Kassem; ebXML poc
> Subject: Re: Proposal: A Registry Browser GUI tool
>
> In consultation with other members and having thought about the binding
> issue
> I have
> come to think that bindings to specific technologies do not belong in the
> spec at this time. I think
> that an RS implementation must provide an interoperable TRP based api.
>
> An RS implementation is free to provide any other APIs in addition to the
> required TRP api as an implementation specific detail.
>
> Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>
> > First a correction.
> >
> > It is the simple layer that sits on top of the TRP layer not the other
> > way around.
> >
> > The RS provides a technology netral interface
> > to services in UML form. Binding can be defined to various technologies
> > and are planned
> > to be specified in the appendix of RS spec.
> >
> > My own RS implementation provides a Java binding that makes it completely
> > obvious and simple for
> > the RS client (e.g. RS Browser GUI tool) to access the RS blissfully
> > ignorant of the
> > underlying communication (ebXML TRP).
> >
> > Demonstrating the RS functionality and its interoperable interface is
> > what RegRep needs to do
> > for Tokyo not the simple Java binding layer. Ofcourse by that time I will
> > offer the Java binding to
> > RR team for acceptance in RS sppendix as just another binding to RS.
> > Others are free to submit
> > LDAP, SOAP, DASL whatever bindings in the same level playing field.
> >
> > David RR Webber wrote:
> >
> > > Message text written by Nicholas Kassem
> > > >
> > > I beg to differ. You seem to imply that ebXML TRP has some systemic
> > > performance limitations precluding its' use in B2C scenarios. I don't
> > > accept this assertion.
> > >
> > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> > >
> > > No - I'm not saying that - I'm saying there's alot of overhead
> > > in there that are out of place for a simple primitive interface.
> > >
> > > I've realized now that the TRP layer can sit on top of the
> > > primitive layer.
> > >
> > > That way if you want to talk to the primitives via TRP - cool,
> > > that will work.  But findamentally you have to be able to issue
> > > the primitive calls directly too.
> > >
> > > Demonstrating the primitives layer is what RegRep needs to
> > > do - not the TRP layer - we know that works already!
> > >
> > > DW.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Farrukh
>
> --
> Regards,
> Farrukh

--
Regards,
Farrukh

begin:vcard 
n:Najmi;Farrukh 
tel;fax:781-442-1610
tel;work:781-442-0703
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:www.sun.com
org:Sun Microsystems;Java Software
adr:;;1 Network Drive, MS BUR02-302;Burlington;MA;01803-0902;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:najmi@east.sun.com
fn:Farrukh S. Najmi
end:vcard