W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-soap-jms@w3.org > February 2009

ACTION-66 - Bring up the additional MEP

From: Rokicki, Derek <Derek.Rokicki@softwareag.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:05:59 -0500
Message-ID: <173583B35C32FD48B3114FB1122C3FEF019C5ED1@resmsg04.AME.ad.sag>
To: <public-soap-jms@w3.org>
Group,

I was wondering if we need to mention anything about supporting (or not
supporting) additional MEPs beyond Request-Response and One-Way?
Specifically, I was wondering if a Robust In-Only MEP might also apply
to SOAP over JMS.

I can imagine a use case where a client may want to be notified about
faults that occur on the provider, but may not want to synchronously
wait for a response message.  This seems to be an ideal fit for Robust
In-Only.

If we decide that it is important to support this MEP then we will need
to modify section 2.5 Supported Message Exchange Patterns.  We will also
need to add a new section to the spec, something similar to sections 2.6
and 2.7.

If there is time I would like to discuss this further in tomorrow's
meeting.

On a related note, I noticed that we use the acronym "MEP" in the name
of section 2.6, but we use the complete term "Message Exchange Pattern"
in the name of sections 2.5 and 2.7.  I.e. 
2.5 Supported Message Exchange Patterns
2.6 Request-Response MEP
2.7 One-way Message Exchange Pattern

I suggest we rename section 2.6 to Request-Response Message Exchange
Pattern.

Regards,
Derek
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 01:06:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:16:20 GMT