Re: [sca-bindings] question on priority of solving issue bindings02

[Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>]

Hi Tom,

Tom Rutt wrote:

49D4F16F.2050504@coastin.com" type="cite">During the call on 4/2 we gave the following priority for resolving bindings 2

*Ashok:* BINDINGS-2 -- Top on nice-to-have pile

I am a little confused.  I thought that Anish proposal was for an optional
but normative protocol for use with the wsdl binding.

If we do not have at least one normative way to do callbacks, how can we say the wsdl binding of sca supports bidir interfaces?

I'm confused by your question.  We don't necessarily have to have any normative ways to do it, so long as we, collectively as a TC, have each convinced ourselves that it is possible to have at least one.

Is your question really whether:

1. It is sufficient to have an SCA runtime work with itself
2. Or whether we need interoperability with other possible SCA runtimes

I think we all agree that #1 is required, but that doesn't need to indicate how it is achieved.

For #2, it is useful, but probably not sufficient, to have also specified what is going into the resolution for bindings-2.  I say it probably isn't sufficient, only in that SOAP interoperability seems to have all sorts of corner cases.

-Eric.