Deferred port-type

[Wil O'Mullane]

I think this came up in one of the boston disucussions.
Its kind of nice but will make the registry yet more complex and registring probably also more complex.

It is also not difficult in my implementation to simply call this other service and pass back the info. i.e. You skynode may query the registry for its entry and return it from the GetRegistration Interface. Its a few lines of code for the implementer and means a more consistent interface for clients. It also means no changes to VoResource.

wil
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 06:29:10PM +0100, Tony Linde wrote:
> Something I thought of while looking at the SkyNode spec just now was that
> perhaps we need some way for a service to indicate (through its registry
> entry? its wsdl?) that it supplies some aspects of a standard interface
> through another interface: so a port-type is supplied by another service.
> 
> What I had in mind was about SkyNode. Many data services will not want to
> have to supply detailed metadata when it is already supplied via the
> registry. If there was some way for it to indicate that the GetMetadata,
> Tables, Columns etc port-types were to be resolved by calling another
> service using set information (eg a registry service with its resourceID as
> parameter) then it could still meet the interface without needing extra
> coding.
> 
> The same could apply to, say, the getAvailability port-type for services
> which are clustered together with a single management service which looks
> after their availability.
> 
> Is this possible?
> 
> Cheers,
> Tony.