[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
Wouldn't we be better off with mayProvides="SOAP" ? Dave Booz STSM, SCA and WebSphere Architecture Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC "Distributed objects first, then world hunger" Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093 e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com http://washome.austin.ibm.com/xwiki/bin/view/SCA2Team/WebHome Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk. ibm.com> To OASIS Bindings 06/09/2008 05:46 <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org> AM cc Subject Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 25: Does binding.ws imply SOAP Eric, I agree, that <binding.ws/> MUST support SOAP, or must support SOAP over HTTP is a reasonable position - and can help interop. (We might go further and demand that WS-I Basic Profile must be supported for the "unadorned" <binding.ws/>) With regard to the "alwaysProvides="SOAP" intent, there we need a discussion. If THAT were required, then it would imply that <binding.ws/> ALWAYS means "SOAP" message format - and that no other format is allowed. This is a further step. Requiring that the binding implementation support SOAP is not the same as requiring it to support SOAP at all times. This requirement could render valid WSDLs invalid, for example if they used a "RESTful" style XML format for the exchanged messages, rather than SOAP. Do we want to go this far? 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 Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com> To 06/06/2008 12:31 Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB cc OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open .org> Subject Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 25: Does binding.ws imply SOAP Following all of Mike's points.... Mike Edwards wrote: 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 I believe we require supporting binding.ws with nothing additional supported, as in: "<binding.ws/>" Coupled with Mike's statement above, this implies that a conforming implementation MUST support SOAP, even if SOAP is not used in a particular configuration. Is that the question or is the question more specifically that it is always true that a binding.ws implementation "alwaysProvides" "soap"? If you can't tell, I'm slightly lost as to the actual issue. -Eric. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 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]