550 2004-02-20 05:31:06 +0000 Should we support wsdl 1.1 2004-09-16 22:07:10 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WS Choreography Spec: Concrete and QOS unspecified Other other RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal -- 1 martin.chapman martin.chapman oldest_to_newest 1366 0 martin.chapman 2004-02-20 05:31:06 +0000 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? 2073 1 charlton 2004-07-06 13:48:13 +0000 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? 2083 2 charlton 2004-07-13 14:45:51 +0000 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. 2120 3 charlton 2004-08-06 04:49:50 +0000 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. 2358 4 martin.chapman 2004-09-16 22:05:52 +0000 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 2359 5 martin.chapman 2004-09-16 22:07:10 +0000 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