This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 550 - Should we support wsdl 1.1
Summary: Should we support wsdl 1.1
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: WS Choreography
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Spec: Concrete and QOS (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: --
Assignee: Martin Chapman
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-02-20 05:31 UTC by Martin Chapman
Modified: 2004-09-16 22:07 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Martin Chapman 2004-02-20 05:31:06 UTC
The charter and mission of the ws-chor group is to define a choreo language 
based on wsdl 2.0 (nee 1.2). Should we support wsdl 1.1 at all either as well 
as wsdl 2.0 or instead of 2.0?
Comment 1 Charlton Barreto 2004-07-06 13:48:13 UTC
Given the timing of ws-chor, and what wsdl 2.0 addresses (which alleviates a
number of issues in ws-chor per my understanding), would it not be appropriate
for us to simply support wsdl 2.0+ and not 1.1? 
Comment 2 Charlton Barreto 2004-07-13 14:45:51 UTC
After further review and discussion, it is apparent that support of WSDL 1.1 in
ws-chor will depend heavily on how we support BPEL. BPEL 2.0 still depends on
wsdl 1.1. If we must depend upon BPEL 1.1 or 2.0, we will need to support wsdl 1.1.
The greatest in wsdl 2.0 from 1.1 is the richer separation of abstract interface
and concrete protocols. The rest of the changes are as follows:
  - removal of message constructs (replaced by types XSD definitions in 2.0)
  - removal of operator overloading support in 2.0
  - renaming PortTypes to Interfaces and adding support for interface
inheritance via the extends attribute
  - renaming of Ports to Endpoints
Given that, other than the semantic enrichment, these changes are relatively
minor, it would not seem excessive to require that both wsdl 1.1 and wsdl 2.0 be
supported in ws-chor. 
I would like to enter this as a discussion point in conjunction with the general
discussion on critical specification dependencies. 
Comment 3 Charlton Barreto 2004-08-06 04:49:50 UTC
I propose that we support WSDL 1.1 (WS-I BP 1.1 based on the results of my impact analysis on CDL 
and whether we can drop the solicit response and noticiation MEPs) along with WSDL 2.0, based on my 
initial analysis of the level of MEP supersetting by WSDL 2.0 and the fact that the only other major 
changes in 2.0 are the additional level of abstraction and how parts are handled.
Comment 4 Martin Chapman 2004-09-16 22:05:52 UTC
at the con call of 14 september 2004 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2004Sep/att-
0045/Minutes20040914_0.txt). We agreed that we will support wsdl 1.1 in the cdl 
spec with the following restriction:

When using wsdl 1.1 in CDL, CDL will only support the WSDL 1.1 patterns that 
are in WS-I's BP1.1.

Issue marked as resolved as fixed
Comment 5 Martin Chapman 2004-09-16 22:07:10 UTC
at the con call of 14 september 2004 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2004Sep/att-
0045/Minutes20040914_0.txt). We agreed that we will support wsdl 1.1 in the cdl 
spec with the following restriction:

When using wsdl 1.1 in CDL, CDL will only support the WSDL 1.1 patterns that 
are in WS-I's BP1.1.

Issue marked as resolved as fixed