Re: BINDINGS-73 (was: Suggested wording for POLICY-83)

[Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com>]

I updated the subject line, as this is now a BINDINGS-73 discussion.

Eric has presented some important use cases for preserving the current
rules in the WS Binding spec.  In addition, I think the following
should be allowed:

  1. A service with the unqualified SOAP intent, exposed using a
     SOAP 1.2 WSDL binding or WSDL port (specified via @wsdlElement).

  2. A reference with the unqualified SOAP intent that uses a
     SOAP 1.2 WSDL binding or WSDL port (specified via @wsdlElement).

   Simon

Eric Johnson wrote:
> Ugh.
> 
> I find myself confused by the entire thread.  To clarify, here are the
> scenarios I care about:
> 
> Here's my simple notion:  I put binding.ws on a *service*, with a SOAP
> intent - not further qualified.
> 
> I want it to be possible for the conforming SCA runtime to expose BOTH a
> SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2 endpoint at the same URI.  That is, I want to
> follow in the useful pattern of "being lenient in what I accept, and
> strict in what I produce."
> 
> For the reference case, when putting a binding.ws on a *reference*, with
> a SOAP intent - again, not further qualified - and then pointing at a
> WSDL service element, and it contains ports with different versions of
> SOAP supported, can the conforming SCA runtime choose any of those
> ports?  There may be orthogonal concerns (security), which will
> discriminate amongst the available ports, and being forced to use SOAP
> 1.1 as the default arbitrarily over-constrains the solution, possibly to
> the point of error.
> 
> Based on Dave's last response, neither of the above scenarios is the
> same as "resolving the intent to a binding" based on the the default
> qualifier, at least not if an SCA runtime MUST use the default qualifier.
> 
> -Eric.
> 
> Simon Nash wrote:
>> Dave,
>> Thanks, this helps.  I understand your interpretation of what the
>> unqualified SOAP intent means now.  Let's continue this discussion
>> in the Bindings TC under BINDINGS-73.
>>
>>   Simon
>>
>> David Booz wrote:
>>> ...sigh...
>>>
>>> "If the intent is attached in an unqualified form then any version of
>>> SOAP is acceptable."
>>>
>>> That statement is simply repeating the meaning of an unqualified but
>>> qualifiable intent, i.e. it can always be further qualified by
>>> another part of the composite. What does the SOAP intent mean to an
>>> assembler that finds it on a service or reference element? It means
>>> that he must find a binding that can provide SOAP. Any version of
>>> SOAP is fine because the developer did not constrain it. The
>>> assembler may have to add the 1_2 qualifier if that's what he wants
>>> to provide. If he says nothing, the FW will handle resolving the
>>> intent to a binding (or policySet) based on the default qualifier.
>>>
>>> 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 Simon Nash ---05/14/2009 10:31:14
>>> AM---Dave, Here is an extract from the Policy spec CD02 rev1:Simon
>>> Nash ---05/14/2009 10:31:14 AM---Dave, Here is an extract from the
>>> Policy spec CD02 rev1:
> 
>