Re: SOAP pattenrs vs. WSDL patterns

Sounds all correct to me.  David, Umit?  Anyone else?

I think that possibly we need to state these as requirements, or
indicate that the logic of the thing imposes these requirements.

Amy!
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:49:26 +0200
"Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr> wrote:

> I'm still somewhat puzzled. (Although I think I agree.)
> 
> Let me try to paraphrase.
> 
> WSDL must support more than SOAP. So, at the interface level, we need
> to use WSDL patterns, not SOAP MEPs. In bindings other than the SOAP 
> binding, we need to support MEPs other than the SOAP MEPs. In the SOAP
> 
> binding, of course, we need to support SOAP MEPs.
> 
> The MEPs used in a particular binding must be compatible with the WSDL
> 
> patterns used in the corresponding interface/operation.
> 
> Maybe this is more than paraphrasing; maybe the above are
> requirements.
> 
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> Amy Lewis wrote:
> 
> > Sorry.
> > 
> > If WSDL supports more than SOAP (as I believe that it does), then we
> > must support message exchange patterns that they define.  We cannot
> > restrict the set of available MEPs at the binding level to only
> > those defined by SOAP, because WSDL supports binding styles other
> > than SOAP.
> > 
> > Amy!
> > On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:31:53 +0200
> > "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>I'm lost by the double negative (can't-only). Didn't you mean
> >>something different?
> >>
> >>Jean-Jacques.
> >>
> >>Amy Lewis wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>We can't mandate SOAP MEPs only at the binding level, if we plan to
> >>>support bindings other than SOAP.  Can we?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> 
> 


-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com

Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 11:27:43 UTC