OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-bindings message

[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.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]