← Prev in month ← Prev in thread

Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 25: Does binding.ws imply SOAP

From
Mike Edwards <>
Date
2008-06-02T07:52:49+00:00
ID
Thread
Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 25: Does binding.ws imply SOAP
Folks,

I agree with the general direction advocated
here:

1) <binding.ws/> implies a WSDL-related
binding

2) <binding.ws/> SHOULD imply
a SOAP binding

3) <binding.ws/> WITHOUT an explicitly
supplied WSDL MUST support SOAP & HTTP

4) An implementation of binding.ws MAY
implement a limited subset of WSDL bindings - and the list of supported

bindings MAY exclude SOAP and MAY exclude
HTTP

5) SOAP support, when present, MUST
include EITHER SOAP 1.1 OR soap 1.2, both preferably...

I also agree with the need to have a
RESTful binding.  

Who would like to work on a spec for
such a binding? (I'm looking for volunteers)

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:  

Bryan Aupperle <>

30/05/2008 16:27

To



cc

Subject

[sca-bindings] Issue 25: Does binding.ws
imply SOAP

I was persuaded by Simon N.'s comment about keeping binding.ws as flexible
as possible, but I also recognize the interoperability concern.  Following
from that, I believe that we could reasonably take the following position:

- binding.ws requires an interface described by WSDL (either explicitly
or implicitly) with no restriction on WSDL binding from an SCA standpoint.
 Any given implementation MAY limit the WSDL bindings it supports

- A new binding (binding.http?) is needed for RESTful interfaces that are
not described with WSDL - as Anish pointed out use of WSDL is objectionable
to many REST supporters. 

This does waken the concept that binding.ws is guaranteed to be interoperable
since we no longer know that a SOAP binding is provided, but I believe
that if we have the alternative binding that a significant percentage of
the binding.ws implementations would support a SOAP binding.  If we
wanted to be clear about this we could state that implementations of binding.ws
SHOULD support a SOAP binding. 

Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.

STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect

Research Triangle Park,  NC 

+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)

Internet Address: 

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
← Prev in month ← Prev in thread