Re: [sca-bindings] Review comments for binding.ws RFC2119

comments inline <dab> like this </dab>

Summary: There are two changes needed, outlined in my second and fourth responses to Anish.

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:

Anish Karmarkar ---11/20/2008 02:57:30 AM---Dave, Thanks for the comments. Rev3 addresses most of your comments. Comments

From:

Anish Karmarkar <>

To:

OASIS Bindings <>

Date:

11/20/2008 02:57 AM

Subject:

Re: [sca-bindings] Review comments for binding.ws RFC2119

Dave,

Thanks for the comments. Rev3 addresses most of your comments. Comments 

that are *not* addressed are below:

 > [DB5] Why pick out just one flavor?

This is called out specifically because it used to be a popular style 

but is not supported by SCA configuration.

<dab> ok.  still seems strange to call it out. </dab>

 >[DAB11]  non-required here is meant in the structural sense, but does a

 > compliant impl have to support it to be compliant?  I have the same q

 > for almost all the non-required and MAY items. Is that a separate

 > piece of work?

Yes, a compliant impl must support it to be compliant. See if the new 

wordings work for you.

<dab> The places you changed look good. However you missed the non-required wording on EndpointReference. </dab>

 >[DAB14] Does a compliant ws binding have to support interface.wsdl? I

 >hope yes, but where is it stated?  Probably in assembly, but we should

 >call it out.  Also, I didn’t see anything about WSDL 1.1 or WSDL 2.0.

I think this is a separate issue.

I don't think of ws binding as supporting interface.wsdl -- sort of out 

of scope. An SCA runtime does or doesn't support interface.wsdl 

independent of binding.ws.

<dab> ok.  It was the opening sentence of section 2.2 that made the question come to mind. I think I may have a todo to open this as a issue. </dab>

 >[DAB16]  Are there rules in the WSDL spec or WS-I that describe whether

 >extensions can be ignored or not?  If so, I think we want to be inline

 >with those rules and we should refer to them here.

Yes, wsdl has a @wsdl:required for elements that specifies if the 

extensions can be ignored or not. For attribute extensions, you are on 

your own. But I'm not sure about repeating these rules here.

<dab> I think we need two things here:

1) The SCA runtime either MUST or MAY support WSDL extensions.  Neither is stated.

2) a sentence that SCA does not alter the @wsdl:required semantics of the extension.  I'm not sure how to word it either...

</dab>

You had questions about normative-ness of the WSDL generation section. 

IIRC, we decide that it was not a MUST. Bryan also had questions 

regarding this. It would be worthwhile to discuss this on the call.

<dab> I read Eric's consolidated proposal for WSDL gen.  I'll go look at Bryan's comments now. </dab>

-Anish

--

David Booz wrote:

> Anish,

> 

> Thanks for doing the work to get a draft together. I've added a bunch of 

> comments, but no changes in the text.

> 

> /(See attached file: sca-binding-ws-1[1].1-spec-cd01-rev2_dab23Oct.doc)/

> 

> 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:

> 

> 

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> 

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that

> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that

generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php