[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Attempt #4 at WSDL binding
Eric Johnson wrote: > 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. > Ok. If we agree on that, then the only issue would be about whether to allow rpc/literal or not for the default bindings. If we want to allow it, we'll have to provide a SCA-defined default namespace for the rpc wrapper element and the part accessors. -Anish --
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]