Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 25: proposal

[Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com>]

I think it's inconsistent to tie the requirement for SOAP 1.2 support
to whether or not @wsdlElement is supported.  Given that we have an
intent "SOAP_1.2" that can be used without wsdlElement to mandate
SOAP 1.2, I don't see why we shouldn't extend the requirement to
support SOAP 1.2 to the bare <binding.ws/> case as well.

Like Mike and Dave, I would prefer to require support for wsdlElement.
For practical use in the real world to get SCA and non-SCA code to
interoperate successfully, I think the ability to use WSDL will be needed.

   Simon

If we are going to
David Booz wrote:
> Even for full support of SOAP/HTTP, the ability to use a specific WSDL 
> binding enables several flavors (rpc/lit etc) that there is no other way 
> to control. I tend to think we should require a conforming impl to 
> support @wsdlElement so that users can at least be assured of the 
> broadest possible SOAP/HTTP capability.
> 
> Dave Booz
> STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
> Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
> "Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
> Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
> e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com
> 
> Inactive hide details for Mike Edwards ---02/11/2009 05:38:23 
> AM---Anish, What's the motivation for not requiring support for tMike 
> Edwards ---02/11/2009 05:38:23 AM---Anish, What's the motivation for not 
> requiring support for the @wsdlElement
> 
> 
> From:	
> Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>
> 
> To:	
> OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
> 
> Date:	
> 02/11/2009 05:38 AM
> 
> Subject:	
> Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 25: proposal
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anish,
> 
> What's the motivation for not requiring support for the @wsdlElement 
> attribute?
> 
> Thinking about this, I tend to favour requiring support for that 
> attribute, but being
> flexible about allowing the binding implementation to potentially refuse 
> to accept
> WSDLs with specific aspects (although requiring SOAP 1.1 & 1.2 support 
> is OK
> with me).
> 
> 
> Yours, Mike.
> 
> Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
> Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
> IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
> Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 Mobile: +44-7802-467431
> Email: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com
> 
> From: 	Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
> To: 	OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Date: 	11/02/2009 07:19
> Subject: 	[sca-bindings] Issue 25: proposal
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> I went through our ML archives for discussion on 25 (if you are
> interested it happened in 5/8, 6/8 and 7/8. We also had a discussion on
> this during one of our f2f (but I did not get a chance to look at the
> minutes for that f2f). The discussions are about a lot of things
> including whether the binding should be renamed to binding.soap, have
> multiple bindings (for those who attended the f2f, may remember the
> matrix) etc.
> 
> In the spec what we have is:
> 1) binding.ws that is wsdl 1.1 based, but extensible
> 2) soap 1.1/http defaults for <binding.ws/>
> 
> Given that the raison d'être for binding.ws is soap using WSDL 1.1 as
> the description language, I would like to suggest the following
> direction for the resolution:
> 
> 1) An implementation that claims conformance to this spec MUST support
> the bare <binding.ws/> element (i.e. support soap 1.1/http)
> {corollary: Any implementation that claims conformance to this spec MUST
> include "soap.1_1" intent in its list of mayProvides}
> 
> 2) An implementation that claims conformance to this spec SHOULD support
> the use of @wsdlElement within <binding.ws> element.
> 
> 3) An implementation that claims conformance to this specification and
> supports the use of @wsdlElement within <binding.ws> element MUST
> support the WSDL 1.1 binding for SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2.
> 
> With the two above, I'm trying to balance few things:
> needs of portability or providing more teeth to conformance, the
> possibility that someone may want to support soap 1.1/http but doesn't
> want to support WSDL 1.1, and the need to avoid creation of profile(s)
> that would make <binding.ws> more meaning.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:_
> __https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php_ 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> /
> /
> 
> /Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU/
> 
> 
> 
> 
>