Re: [sca-assembly] New Issue: Remove dependencies on SCA Policy and SCA WS Binding

[Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>]

Hi Martin,

On 9/19/13 10:07 AM, Martin Chapman wrote:

To do the job properly requires a re-examination of some of the out-dated core principles.

Hmmm.

One possible way to address that re-examination might be to decouple assembly from as many of the other specifications, and then let the implementations evolve. With actual experience implementing the specification across myriad different use-cases, the way to address those "out-dated" core principles might emerge. And then the standard could move forward based on existing practice, rather than guessing about the future.

In any event, as I've stated many times - mostly in conjunction with our 1.2 efforts - the existing specification language does not constrain one to using WSDL 1.1 for interface definitions. The only circumstance in which an interface must map to WSDL 1.1 relates to two distinct interface types, both marked remotable, and the conforming implementation is supposed to see if they're compatible. I've argued strenuously for relaxing this constraint to map to WSDL 1.1 for compatibility testing. I believe this is the only constraint that I can find that actually drives WSDL 1.1 interfaces.

Well, phooey. Just define a REST interface that is remotable to itself, and then see if implementations emerge that have a need to map to an interface type other than WSDL 1.1, for maximum compatibility.

Oh, wait, that would require actually letting Assembly become a spec, and then letting people experiment and build on top of it.

Drat, that's TWO reasons to vote for Assembly as a standard, and in just one short email!

:-)

Eric.