[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Attempt #4 at WSDL binding
Hi Anish, Anish Karmarkar wrote: > Eric Johnson wrote: >> Hi Anish, >> >> Anish Karmarkar wrote: >>> Eric Johnson wrote: >>>> Hi Anish, >>>> >>>> Anish Karmarkar wrote: >>>> >>>> [snip - At the risk of having removed too much context from the >>>> discussion.] >>>>> The bigger question, is do we want our default binding to be >>>>> interoperable, if yes, then we should stick to BP conformance with >>>>> some minimal exceptions. Anything else, define your own WSDL binding. >>>>> >>>>>> If you think this really is an error, is seems that the assembly >>>>>> specification must state something normative about how >>>>>> interface.wsdl >>>>>> portTypes cannot be any odd WSDL 1.1 portType, but they must be WS-I >>>>>> BP 1.2 compliant portTypes. But I don't think it should. >>>>> I don't think we need to go that far. If someone wants to do BP >>>>> non-compliant portType they can, but they have to define their own >>>>> bindings. Don't rely on defaults. >>>> That sounds like a decent approach. I'll have to think about it more >>>> prior to our next meeting, but it seems like a reasonable constraint - >>>> if the portType is not compatible with BP 1.2, then the user must >>>> explicitly provide their own binding. >>>> >>> Ok. If we agree on that, then the only issue would be about whether to >>> allow rpc/literal or not for the default bindings. If we want to allow >>> it, we'll have to provide a SCA-defined default namespace for the rpc >>> wrapper element and the part accessors. >> My take is that we should allow it - we've been talking about supporting >> it up until now, so yes, we need that namespace identifier. >> > > I'm ok with that. > I had suggested before that if we want to allow rpc/literal then we > provide a *fixed* NS URI. I'm beginning to think that a fixed NS URI > that is used by everyone may not be a good idea. Instead we might want > to use the hierarchical URI associated with the component and add > "service-name/binding-name" to it. > What do you think? That sounds reasonable to me. -Eric.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]