Re: [sca-bindings] Attempt #4 at WSDL binding

[Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>]

Hi Anish,

Anish Karmarkar wrote:

[snip - At the risk of having removed too much context from the discussion.]
> The bigger question, is do we want our default binding to be
> interoperable, if yes, then we should stick to BP conformance with
> some minimal exceptions. Anything else, define your own WSDL binding.
>
>> If you think this really is an error, is seems that the assembly
>> specification must state something normative about how interface.wsdl
>> portTypes cannot be any odd WSDL 1.1 portType, but they must be WS-I
>> BP 1.2 compliant portTypes.  But I don't think it should.
> I don't think we need to go that far. If someone wants to do BP
> non-compliant portType they can, but they have to define their own
> bindings. Don't rely on defaults.
That sounds like a decent approach.  I'll have to think about it more
prior to our next meeting, but it seems like a reasonable constraint -
if the portType is not compatible with BP 1.2, then the user must
explicitly provide their own binding.

-Eric.