Re: [sca-bindings] question on priority of solving issue bindings02

Hi Tom,

Tom Rutt wrote:
During
the call on 4/2 we gave the following priority for resolving bindings 2
  

  

*Ashok:* BINDINGS-2 -- Top on nice-to-have pile
  

  

I am a little confused.  I thought that Anish proposal was for an
optional
  

but normative protocol for use with the wsdl binding.
  

  

If we do not have at least one normative way to do callbacks, how can
we say the wsdl binding of sca supports bidir interfaces?
  

I'm confused by your question.  We don't necessarily have to have any
normative ways to do it, so long as we, collectively as a TC, have each
convinced ourselves that it is possible to have at least one.

Is your question really whether:

  
It is sufficient to have an SCA runtime work with itself

  
Or whether we need interoperability with other possible SCA
runtimes

I think we all agree that #1 is required, but that doesn't need to
indicate how it is achieved.

For #2, it is useful, but probably not sufficient, to have also
specified what is going into the resolution for bindings-2.  I say it
probably isn't sufficient, only in that SOAP interoperability seems to
have all sorts of corner cases.

-Eric.