Issue 116: Interface compatibility refers to input/output types which isambiguous when using WSDL 1.1

[Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>]

Folks,

Comments inline

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

Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> wrote on 02/03/2009
10:24:04:

> [image removed] 
<snip>
> > Outline --
> > 1) Use the WSDL 1.1 interface as the canonical interface language
and
> > require that "sameness" be determined after the interfaces
are mapped to
> > WSDL 1.1.
>  >
> I don't think this is the right solution.  We don't require (and
shouldn't
> require) that all SCA interfaces must be mappable to WSDL.  The
requirement
> should be that the SCA interface types of the source and target interface
> define mappings that can be applied to the target interface to produce
> a representation of the target interface in the source interface language.
> 

I disagree.  I think that for remotable interfaces,
it is right and reasonable
to require that all interface types map to WSDL.  If
this is not done, then you
have a difficult n x n mapping table to construct
- and worse, I think it will
be hard to know whether any particular binding can
be used for that remotable
interface.

The requirement for mapping to WSDL allows a much
simpler approach both to
comparison of interfaces and also to the application
of bindings.

For local interfaces, WSDL mapping should not be a
requirement, but there, 
the restrictions on mapping of interfaces will need
to be spelled out.

<snip>
> 
>    Simon
> 
> > -Anish
> > --

---

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