sca-bindings message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 25: Does binding.ws imply SOAP
- From: Simon Holdsworth <simon_holdsworth@uk.ibm.com>
- To: "OASIS Bindings" <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 11:28:47 +0100
I think there may be more to binding.ws
than purely being able to express things in WSDL. Folks could reasonably
expect that binding.ws would be the place where you would find support
for WS-* defined capabilities, e.g. WS-RM, WS-AT, WS-Security etc., whereas
you would not expect those to be available in binding.jms or binding.jca
(or whatever else). While none of these mandate SOAP, in practice
they typically only have a SOAP binding standardised, so would not really
be useable in the absence of SOAP.
I'm pretty much in agreement with Mike's
list below, however I do feel that a stronger statement is required for
use of binding.ws - that all implementations that support binding.ws MUST
support the use of the binding.ws element with no WSDL document, and therefore
MUST support SOAP 1.1 or 1.2 and MUST support HTTP. Otherwise the
capability of the binding becomes more vague and SCA runtime vendors will
end up having to define a profile that defines which aspects of binding.ws
are supported and which are not. Having said that there will always
have to be such a profile that defines what WSDL bindings are supported
and which are not. Ideally in many cases developers should just be
able to say <binding.ws/> when exposing web service endpoints, and
know that this will be supported on the target SCA runtime in a way that
is interoperable with SCA references that also use <binding.ws/>.
If we don't take this approach we could
end up with a situation where the JMS binding is more interoperable than
the WS binding ;-)
Regards, Simon
Simon Holdsworth
STSM, SCA Bindings Architect; Master Inventor; OASIS SCA Bindings TC Chair
MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley Park, Winchester SO21 2JN, UK
Tel +44-1962-815059 (Internal 245059) Fax +44-1962-816898
Internet - Simon_Holdsworth@uk.ibm.com
Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB
02/06/2008 08:52
|
To
| "OASIS Bindings" <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 25: Does binding.ws
imply SOAP |
|
Folks,
I agree with the general direction advocated here:
1) <binding.ws/> implies a WSDL-related binding
2) <binding.ws/> SHOULD imply a SOAP binding
3) <binding.ws/> WITHOUT an explicitly supplied WSDL MUST support
SOAP & HTTP
4) An implementation of binding.ws MAY implement a limited subset of WSDL
bindings - and the list of supported
bindings MAY exclude SOAP and MAY exclude HTTP
5) SOAP support, when present, MUST include EITHER SOAP 1.1 OR soap 1.2,
both preferably...
I also agree with the need to have a RESTful binding.
Who would like to work on a spec for such a binding? (I'm looking for volunteers)
Yours, Mike.
Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 Mobile: +44-7802-467431
Email: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com
Bryan Aupperle <aupperle@us.ibm.com>
30/05/2008 16:27
|
To
| sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| [sca-bindings] Issue 25: Does binding.ws
imply SOAP |
|
I was persuaded by Simon N.'s comment about keeping binding.ws as flexible
as possible, but I also recognize the interoperability concern. Following
from that, I believe that we could reasonably take the following position:
- binding.ws requires an interface described by WSDL (either explicitly
or implicitly) with no restriction on WSDL binding from an SCA standpoint.
Any given implementation MAY limit the WSDL bindings it supports
- A new binding (binding.http?) is needed for RESTful interfaces that are
not described with WSDL - as Anish pointed out use of WSDL is objectionable
to many REST supporters.
This does waken the concept that binding.ws is guaranteed to be interoperable
since we no longer know that a SOAP binding is provided, but I believe
that if we have the alternative binding that a significant percentage of
the binding.ws implementations would support a SOAP binding. If we
wanted to be clear about this we could state that implementations of binding.ws
SHOULD support a SOAP binding.
Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
Research Triangle Park, NC
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]