Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 25: proposal

[David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com>]

Even for full support of SOAP/HTTP, the ability to use a specific WSDL binding enables several flavors (rpc/lit etc) that there is no other way to control. I tend to think we should require a conforming impl to support @wsdlElement so that users can at least be assured of the broadest possible SOAP/HTTP capability.

Dave Booz
STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com

Mike Edwards ---02/11/2009 05:38:23 AM---Anish, What's the motivation for not requiring support for the @wsdlElement

From:	Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>
To:	OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:	02/11/2009 05:38 AM
Subject:	Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 25: proposal

---

Anish, 

What's the motivation for not requiring support for the @wsdlElement attribute? 

Thinking about this, I tend to favour requiring support for that attribute, but being 
flexible about allowing the binding implementation to potentially refuse to accept 
WSDLs with specific aspects (although requiring SOAP 1.1 & 1.2 support is OK 
with me). 


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

From:	Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
To:	OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:	11/02/2009 07:19
Subject:	[sca-bindings] Issue 25: proposal

---

I went through our ML archives for discussion on 25 (if you are 
interested it happened in 5/8, 6/8 and 7/8. We also had a discussion on 
this during one of our f2f (but I did not get a chance to look at the 
minutes for that f2f). The discussions are about a lot of things 
including whether the binding should be renamed to binding.soap, have 
multiple bindings (for those who attended the f2f, may remember the 
matrix) etc.

In the spec what we have is:
1) binding.ws that is wsdl 1.1 based, but extensible
2) soap 1.1/http defaults for <binding.ws/>

Given that the raison d'être for binding.ws is soap using WSDL 1.1 as 
the description language, I would like to suggest the following 
direction for the resolution:

1) An implementation that claims conformance to this spec MUST support 
the bare <binding.ws/> element (i.e. support soap 1.1/http)
{corollary: Any implementation that claims conformance to this spec MUST 
include "soap.1_1" intent in its list of mayProvides}

2) An implementation that claims conformance to this spec SHOULD support 
 the use of @wsdlElement within <binding.ws> element.

3) An implementation that claims conformance to this specification and 
supports the use of @wsdlElement within <binding.ws> element MUST 
support the WSDL 1.1 binding for SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2.

With the two above, I'm trying to balance few things:
needs of portability or providing more teeth to conformance, the 
possibility that someone may want to support soap 1.1/http but doesn't 
want to support WSDL 1.1, and the need to avoid creation of profile(s) 
that would make <binding.ws> more meaning.

Comments?

-Anish
--

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to 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