Eric Johnson wrote:
> Hi Anish,
>
> Anish Karmarkar wrote:
>
> [snip - At the risk of having removed too much context from the discussion.]
>> The bigger question, is do we want our default binding to be
>> interoperable, if yes, then we should stick to BP conformance with
>> some minimal exceptions. Anything else, define your own WSDL binding.
>>
>>> If you think this really is an error, is seems that the assembly
>>> specification must state something normative about how interface.wsdl
>>> portTypes cannot be any odd WSDL 1.1 portType, but they must be WS-I
>>> BP 1.2 compliant portTypes. But I don't think it should.
>> I don't think we need to go that far. If someone wants to do BP
>> non-compliant portType they can, but they have to define their own
>> bindings. Don't rely on defaults.
> That sounds like a decent approach. I'll have to think about it more
> prior to our next meeting, but it seems like a reasonable constraint -
> if the portType is not compatible with BP 1.2, then the user must
> explicitly provide their own binding.
>
Ok. If we agree on that, then the only issue would be about whether to
allow rpc/literal or not for the default bindings. If we want to allow
it, we'll have to provide a SCA-defined default namespace for the rpc
wrapper element and the part accessors.
-Anish
--
