[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Attempt #4 at WSDL binding
Hi Anish, Anish Karmarkar wrote: > 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. My take is that we should allow it - we've been talking about supporting it up until now, so yes, we need that namespace identifier. -Eric.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]