Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 25 inlined proposal

[Simon Holdsworth <simon_holdsworth@uk.ibm.com>]

Anish,

This looks fine to me.  We don't
currently have statements about support for optional elements in other
binding specs - it looks like we ought to add these - at least with a blanket
statement that all optional elements and attributes MUST be supported.
 Similarly for the three additional statements you've added to section
5, those ought to appear in the other binding specs too (assuming we agree
on them for binding.ws).  Unfortunately I think all that will need
new issues for binding.jms and binding.jca unless the TC feels its an editorial
action to copy that wording into the other specs.

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

Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>

10/04/2009 06:42

To	OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	[sca-bindings] Issue 25 inlined proposal

Per today's concall discussion, I have created a proposal
for issue 25 
using CD02 as the basis.

Specifically:
1) I left points 1, 2 from the previous proposal and 2.1 from the chat
in section 5.
2) Moved the requirements regarding optional attributes and elements to
section 2. Note that the original proposal talked only about 
@wsdli:wsdlLocation, @wsdlElement, and <endpointReference>, which
seemed 
like a strange thing to do. So I have made a statement about all the the
optional attributes and children elements.
3) Moved the requirement to support wsdl 1.1 bindings for soap 1.1/1.2
over http to section 2.6. The wordings are tweaked along the lines of 
what Eric was suggesting. I also replaced the NS with the appropriate 
prefix.
4) The requirements regarding intents are moved to section 2.8.
5) In addition, I have added three requirements to section 5. These 
requirement were not part of the original proposal. They are about what
the runtime must do when it encounters a <binding.ws> element in
a 
composite, constrainingType or a componentType that does not conform to
the schema. The requirements are very similar to the conformance 
requirements specified by the assembly and BPEL conformance section. If
you think these requirements should be in a different section, please do
let me know. I didn't find a suitable section and figured aligning with
assembly and BPEL spec would be a good thing.
6) Updated the references to include the needed references.
7) Updated the prefix table.

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

sca-binding-ws-1.1-spec-cd02_issue25-proposal.doc