Issue 25: Does binding.ws imply SOAP

[Bryan Aupperle <aupperle@us.ibm.com>]

I was persuaded by Simon N.'s comment
about keeping binding.ws as flexible as possible, but I also recognize
the interoperability concern.  Following from that, I believe that
we could reasonably take the following position:

- binding.ws requires an interface described
by WSDL (either explicitly or implicitly) with no restriction on WSDL binding
from an SCA standpoint.  Any given implementation MAY limit the WSDL
bindings it supports

- A new binding (binding.http?) is needed
for RESTful interfaces that are not described with WSDL - as Anish pointed
out use of WSDL is objectionable to many REST supporters.

This does waken the concept that binding.ws
is guaranteed to be interoperable since we no longer know that a SOAP binding
is provided, but I believe that if we have the alternative binding that
a significant percentage of the binding.ws implementations would support
a SOAP binding.  If we wanted to be clear about this we could state
that implementations of binding.ws SHOULD support a SOAP binding.

Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect

Research Triangle Park,  NC 
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com