W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-soap-jms@w3.org > May 2010

Resolution of ACTION-148 and Issue 29

From: Mark Phillips <M8PHILLI@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 12:27:11 +0100
To: public-soap-jms@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1780D835.BDFBE952-ON8025772E.003D2331-8025772E.003EEA1F@uk.ibm.com>

With reference to Issue 19 - "In the behaviour of the responding
node is too prescriptive about the destination to which the response must
be sent" [1], I agree with the consensus reached in the call of 2010-03-02
[2] that is, because the Binding specification is based on the SOAP
request-response MEP, then the request-response in the spec. is correct as
it stands and should not be changed .

Further discussion in the 2010-03-02 call was around the use of the one-way
SOAP/JMS MEP for response messages  (for example as a reply message when a
non-anonymous replyTo address is used in WS-Addressing).  A concern was
raised that our one-way MEP description was expressed in terms of
'requests' and that we might need to reword section 2.7 [3] to ensure that
it could apply to request, response, or any other message type.  However, I
have reviewed this section, and believe that no changes are required.

I therefore propose that we close both ACTION-148 and Issue 29 with no
further action being required.

[1] - http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/29
[2] - http://www.w3.org/2010/03/02-soap-jms-minutes.html
[3] - http://dev.w3.org/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html#binding-one-way

Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 11:29:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:17:21 UTC