StandardInterfaces V0.1

[Tony Linde]

Or we could specify in the service's registry entry how each of the methods
and its parameters is implemented.

Maybe with default values in the xsd.

Cheers,
Tony. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-grid at eso.org [mailto:owner-grid at eso.org] On 
> Behalf Of Wil O'Mullane
> Sent: 16 January 2004 14:46
> To: Pierre Fernique
> Cc: Elizabeth Auden; registry at ivoa.net; 'Grid_Ivoa_List'
> Subject: Re: StandardInterfaces V0.1
> 
> 
> > >>- why restrict this to web services? We should be able to 
> agree more 
> > >>than one way of implementing services: web service and cgi as a 
> > >>minimum I guess.
> > In my mind, I would be very surprise if the future of the astronomy 
> > will
> > be only WS. I think that after this fashion time, this 
> technology will 
> > take its real place : an open remote procedure call 
> mechanism. Not more, 
> > not less. And it certainly won't replace simple CGIs for 
> which there is 
> > no real client side.
> 
> Yes of course .. I took this out of SkyNode which is SOAP 
> based and it was in the WEb/Grid Servives section. Hence the 
> WS leaning. 
> 
> Then I have a question. 
> If we have these standard interfaces for any CGI how do we 
> relate that to the cgi. DO we add a single parameter like SI 
> where SI=metadata returns metadata and 
> SI=HarvetLog&fromDate=1-1-2000  returns the log. 
> I presume we may still asume XML is returned from these type fo calls.
> 
> Or should we assume for each CGI a seperate CGI so if i have 
> ../cgi-bin/X I should have ../cgi-bin/stdifX which implenets 
> the standard interfaces..
> 
> I rather like option 2 as it means no changes to existing code.
> 
> 
> For SOAP services of course the document as stands would be fine. 
> XSD may be worked up for the indidvidual return types...
> 
> 
> wil
> 
> 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Pierre Fernique
>