RE: [ebxml-dev] CPPA to WSDL bindings

[Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Excerpted reply with comment following


I had said <Excerpt>
we are now aiming for WSDL 1.2 integration (of some sort) and
integration also of all the WS-Policy,Trust,SecureConversations,Etc,Etc
extensions.
</Excerpt>

Joseph Chiusano says:
As written, I think this conveys that WS-Policy (etc.) are extensions to
WSDL - which they are not.  They are specifications under the Global XML
Web Services (GXA) initiative, which (in some specifications such as
WS-PolicyAttachment) defines how to associate policy expressions with
WSDL, but these are really not "extensions" in the pure sense.


Comment: Some of the WS-XXX specs pertain to SOAP extensions (wsse),
some are basically stand-alone defs under a namespace, some have
provision for wsdl integration. I actually did not intend to make any
generalization covering them all, partly because I have not even
finished reading all of them yet. 

The "Web Services Policy Attachment" WS-PolicyAttachment document
contains sections such as
"4. Attaching Policies to WSDL" as you point out.

However, WSDL 1.2 is considering adding an extension mechanism akin to
the SOAP Feature and Property approach. I would suspect that if and when
this is done, various URIs identifying Features defined in other
specifications would be defined, and they are then to be counted as
"extensions". The Feature's properties may actually reference other web
available documents that contain specific information of interest. The
other substitution group approach for wsdl extensions is being worked
out also, but I am uncertain whether this will be the way aspects of the
WS-xxx specs will be added to wsdl. [Surely you wouldn't put scare
quotes around those extensions!] WS-XXX defined Features that show up in
the SOAP binding might appear somehow described in the wsdl:binding
element as SOAP features. Perhaps you know how all these additional
modules will be related to info items in SOAP messages or in a SOAP
flavor of the wsdl:binding  (or other items)? I am hoping there will be
some integration devices if only by the URI constants of Features.
Actual references (qnames or URIs or...) or even in line content might
be suitable as well. 

Anyway, your comment indirectly supports the apology I was trying to
make. It may be just a bit premature to try to nail down precisely how
future CPPA work might integrate all the modules of functionality that
are being defined, or even for us to hook up to wsdl. [WSDL 1.2 has a
proposal on ways to refer to its definitions that possibly we should
use, once we know it will be part of 1.2.] The tentative state of all
these proposals means that waiting upon sanction of standards
organizations or some indication of stability in interoperable
implementations might be advisable for a while. If you think
otherwise--that things are clear about how to refer to and integrate
these modules of functionality--please send your proposals to the CPPA
list; we are certain to read them with interest!