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

Re: ACTION-66 - Bring up the additional MEP

From: Roland Merrick <roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:40:48 +0000
To: "Rokicki, Derek" <Derek.Rokicki@softwareag.com>
Cc: public-soap-jms@w3.org, public-soap-jms-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF91C47701.A40E24D4-ON80257567.00503685-80257567.0050AB8F@uk.ibm.com>
Greetings Derek, there would seem like there are at least two options we 
can discuss related to this MEP question.

1) we can decide to add another MEP 
2) we can state that additional MEPs can be defined by others and describe 
how that could be done using "Robust In-Only" as an example.

I agree that we should use the complete term "Message Exchange Pattern" in 
the name of sections 2.5 and 2.7.

Regards, Roland

public-soap-jms-request@w3.org wrote on 24/02/2009 01:05:59:

> [image removed] 
> 
> ACTION-66 - Bring up the additional MEP
> 
> Rokicki, Derek 
> 
> to:
> 
> public-soap-jms
> 
> 24/02/2009 01:07
> 
> Sent by:
> 
> public-soap-jms-request@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





Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 14:44:00 GMT

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