Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 25: Does binding.ws imply SOAP

[David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com>]

Wouldn't we be better off with mayProvides="SOAP" ?

Dave Booz
STSM, SCA and WebSphere Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093  or  8-295-6093
e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com
http://washome.austin.ibm.com/xwiki/bin/view/SCA2Team/WebHome


                                                                           
             Mike Edwards                                                  
             <mike_edwards@uk.                                             
             ibm.com>                                                   To 
                                       OASIS Bindings                      
             06/09/2008 05:46          <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org> 
             AM                                                         cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 25: Does   
                                       binding.ws imply SOAP               
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           





Eric,

I agree, that <binding.ws/> MUST support SOAP, or must support SOAP over
HTTP is a reasonable position - and can help interop.
(We might go further and demand that WS-I Basic Profile must be supported
for the "unadorned" <binding.ws/>)

With regard to the "alwaysProvides="SOAP" intent, there we need a
discussion.

If THAT were required, then it would imply that <binding.ws/> ALWAYS means
"SOAP" message format - and that no other format
is allowed.   This is a further step.  Requiring that the binding
implementation support SOAP is not the same as requiring it to support
SOAP at all times.  This requirement could render valid WSDLs invalid, for
example if they used a "RESTful" style XML format for the
exchanged messages, rather than SOAP.

Do we want to go this far?


Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431
Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com

                                                                           
 Eric Johnson                                                              
 <eric@tibco.com>                                                          
                                                                           
                                                                        To 
 06/06/2008 12:31                           Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB      
                                                                        cc 
                                            OASIS Bindings                 
                                            <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open 
                                            .org>                          
                                                                   Subject 
                                            Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 25:   
                                            Does binding.ws imply SOAP     
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           





Following all of Mike's points....

Mike Edwards wrote:

Folks,

I agree with the general direction advocated here:

1) <binding.ws/> implies a WSDL-related binding

2) <binding.ws/> SHOULD imply a SOAP binding

3) <binding.ws/> WITHOUT an explicitly supplied WSDL MUST support SOAP &
HTTP
I believe we require supporting binding.ws with nothing additional
supported, as in:
"<binding.ws/>"

Coupled with Mike's statement above, this implies that a conforming
implementation MUST support SOAP, even if SOAP is not used in a particular
configuration.

Is that the question or is the question more specifically that it is always
true that a binding.ws implementation "alwaysProvides" "soap"?

If you can't tell, I'm slightly lost as to the actual issue.

-Eric.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates
this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php







Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU