Re: [ws-caf] Review of WS-Context version 0.3

["Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>]

Yes there is and there's an issue related to it. The spec. doesn't define
one but neither does it preclude one. (My personal preference is that we add
one for convenience.)

Mark.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray, Bryan P." <bryan.murray@hp.com>
To: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>; <ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 4:28 PM
Subject: RE: [ws-caf] Review of WS-Context version 0.3


> If I remember right someone mentioned on one of our phone calls that
> there was a WSDL at one time which included portTypes with operations
> having input and output elements in addition to what is there now. I was
> just wondering whether the spec allowed something like that to be
> created and still be compliant.
>
> Bryan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 3:17 AM
> To: Murray, Bryan P.; ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Review of WS-Context version 0.3
>
>
> > Are the bindings in the WSDL considered normative also? Does this mean
>
> > that if I am using SOAP 1.1 over HTTP that I must use the binding in
> > the WS-Context WSDL document? Are there conditions under which I am
> > allowed to create a different binding for SOAP 1.1 over HTTP?
>
> Bryan, what did you have in mind here? The WSDL is normative for that
> interaction pattern, but RPC-style WSDL could certainly be provided. In
> fact there is an issue about this which I think we agreed to punt to the
> next release (since most people agreed that the one-way interaction is
> probably more realistic for the type of loosely coupled interactions
> we're looking at).
>
> Mark.
>
> ----
> Mark Little,
> Chief Architect, Transactions,
> Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
>
> www.arjuna.com
>
>
>