Issue 116: Interface compatibility refers to input/output types which isambiguous when using WSDL 1.1

Folks,

Comments inline

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:  

Simon Nash <> wrote on 02/03/2009
10:24:04:

> [image removed] 

<snip>

> > Outline --

> > 1) Use the WSDL 1.1 interface as the canonical interface language
and

> > require that "sameness" be determined after the interfaces
are mapped to

> > WSDL 1.1.

>  >

> I don't think this is the right solution.  We don't require (and
shouldn't

> require) that all SCA interfaces must be mappable to WSDL.  The
requirement

> should be that the SCA interface types of the source and target interface

> define mappings that can be applied to the target interface to produce

> a representation of the target interface in the source interface language.

> 

I disagree.  I think that for remotable interfaces,
it is right and reasonable

to require that all interface types map to WSDL.  If
this is not done, then you

have a difficult n x n mapping table to construct
- and worse, I think it will

be hard to know whether any particular binding can
be used for that remotable

interface.

The requirement for mapping to WSDL allows a much
simpler approach both to

comparison of interfaces and also to the application
of bindings.

For local interfaces, WSDL mapping should not be a
requirement, but there, 

the restrictions on mapping of interfaces will need
to be spelled out.

<snip>

> 

>    Simon

> 

> > -Anish

> > --

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