I appreciate the responses. I don't really want to belabor the point (because it's not very important). FWIW, I agree with Martin's point on the other thread - extensibility is assumed throughout SCA.
wsdlElement is optional. The WSDL can be introduced from the interface extensibility point of the service or reference if a vendor wants to do extensions. I don't think future WSDL2.0 support placement is as cut and dried as you say.
At any rate, it was just a suggestion.
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:
Eric Johnson ---02/04/2009 01:44:58 PM---Hmmm - I suppose I should put more explanation behind my response: We've changed the specification
From:
Eric Johnson <>
To:
Eric Johnson <>
Cc:
David Booz/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS,
Date:
02/04/2009 01:44 PM
Subject:
Re: [sca-bindings] ISSUE 55: WSDL 2.0
Hmmm - I suppose I should put more explanation behind my response:
We've changed the specification such that the @wsdlElement attribute MUST point at a WSDL 1.1 construct. As a consequence, any way to "extend" the binding.ws element to support WSDL 2.0 means either:
You've effectively side-stepped many of the existing elements and attributes of binding.ws by defining alternates that apply to WSDL 2.0 - and you might as well have defined a new element.
You've actually made the extension explicitly incompatible with default binding.ws, an approach of dubious merit
Practically, I think that it does mean that any future binding that supports WSDL 2.0 almost certainly is a new binding element. That extra phrase highlights that we do not think you can extend the binding.ws element in a way that supports WSDL 2.0, and remain conformant to the spec.
-Eric.
Eric Johnson wrote:
Hi David,
David Booz wrote:
I may have missed some discussion. I was surprised to see this:
"This specification only defines a binding using WSDL 1.1, but does not prohibit a future specification defining a binding for WSDL 2.0."
I was expecting to see this:
This specification only defines a binding using WSDL 1.1, but does not prohibit a vendor from extending the binding to support WSDL 2.0.
The first statement doesn't really say anything since future specs are free to change whatever they want anyway. I would have thought that the important point to address was around concerns that the binding was limited to 1.1 in the presence of a WSDL 2.0 spec, and therefore we need to leave the door open for vendors to go there if they want to.
The way I read the first statement is that we expect any future WSDL 2.0 binding to be a separate binding element, that is, not just an extension to the current binding.
-Eric.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
