Re: Processor conformance: fault on non-conformant input

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

>"Umit Yalcinalp" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com> writes:
>  
>
>>What I am particularly concerned about bindings we define normatively in
>>our specification, not an extension, such as HTTP binding and processors
>>choosing to skip it and calling themselves conformant, even if there is 
>>a bug in the document they process.
>>    
>>
>
>Ah now I understand.
>
>This is a totally different question: Do we want to require all
>WSDL processors to support all the bindings we define?
>
>I don't think we should mandate it, but I am confident market 
>forces will require support for SOAP. I'm not so sure about
>the HTTP binding (sorry Phillipe) as it doesn't work with 
>other stuff in the Web service stack. But it doesn't matter;
>the market will decide what gets supported. Mandating support
>will result in a California budget like situation: laws require
>lots of stuff but there ain't no money to pay for it.
>
You are well versed in my region's politics ;-)

>
>In fact, that's precisely the stuff that *should* be profiled
>IMO! I'd be quite happy if the WS-I profile for WSDL 2.0 says
>simply "You must support the SOAP/HTTP binding that those WSDLers
>defined."
>
Ok, let me clarify. I am actually in violent agreement with you.

All I was trying to point out is that perhaps having a conformance 
section for processors is actually not that useful since it is tightly 
coupled to defining a profile. Hence, I am now actually proposing that 
we don't have a processor conformance requirements section at all.

>
>Sanjiva.
>
--umit

>
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Umit Yalcinalp                                  
Consulting Member of Technical Staff
ORACLE
Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          
Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com