Discussion of WSDL generation

[Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>]

After talking about it internally at TIBCO, and in a discussion with 
Anish, we've come to the conclusion that WSDL generation per-se is not 
really the problem that we're dealing with.  Rather, we've failed to 
define a default data binding, and therefore defining rules for default 
WSDL generation seems difficult.

Our suggested solution comes in two parts: define a default data 
binding, and then note that WSDL generation should be consistent with 
the data binding chosen.

The relevant question, then, is what does the databinding look like?  We 
came up with the following:

Transport
    HTTP

Style - single part message
    document
Style - multi-part message
    rpc

binding
    SOAP (should this be 1.1, 1.2, or both? - presumably depends on 
intent, but if none specified, probably 1.1)

SOAP 1.1: SOAPAction = ""
SOAP 1.2: Content-Type "action" parameter - absent

encoding
    literal

message part binding
    all message parts bound to the message body

@namespace - needed for RPC literal

-Eric.