Re: Revised Asynch Binding

Hi Jean-Jacques,

> I am a bit uneasy about creating new (SOAP) bindings uncesserily. In 
> certain circumstances, I agree with Sanjiva, this is unavoidable. 
> However, for simpler cases, I like Dave's idea of essentially providing 
> a "MEP scripting language". This helps reuse existing bindings when 
> applicable.

But at what price? I don't like the price of 2 SOAP-MEPs for one
WSDL MEP. Furthermore, Dave's doing at best a liberal reading of
SOAP1.2 and, at worst a full-scale violation of it to achieve the
2 SOAP-MEP thing using the current SOAP-HTTP binding.

> This is related to issue 191 [1] BTW, whose resolution I don't think I 
> am quite happy with. As Dave is now clearly pointing out, how are WSDL 
> MEPs actually mapped to SOAP MEPs? The mapping is not one-to-one.

We define this very precisely right now - look at the default rules
for the SOAP binding. Its of course not one-to-one (and doesn't need
to be); all we need to do is define *one* SOAP MEP to be used for
the WSDL MEPs for which we are defining bindings.

Sanjiva.