W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > November 2004

RE: i028: Implications of the presence of ReplyTo

From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:06:11 -0000
Message-ID: <37E80E80B681A24B8F768D607373CA800172CE8D@largo.campus.ncl.ac.uk>
To: "Brinild" <brinild@yahoo.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

> 
> --- Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >...And I don't think MEP semantics
> > should be inferred from the presence/absence of wsa:
> > headers ( although
> > the set of such headers could be infered, or even
> > explicitly stated, for
> > a given MEP ).
> 
> Too bad.  The idea of having a self-describing soap
> envelope has its appeal.  Also, knowing if its a
> request/
> response MEP by looking at the message can eliminate
> some ambiguity; for example in cases where there are
> two port-types with the same operation, one as a
> request/response and one as a one-way.

Why would a message tell us whether it's part of a particular MEP or
not? Couldn't the same message be part of multiple MEPs based on the
semantics of a protocol, of a larger message-based interaction?

When you see a letter in real life, you don't know from its envelope
whether a reply should be sent. You know that if a reply is sent where
it should go (if that information is captured) but you'll have to read
the contents of the letter to figure out whether a reply is needed. And
it may be the case that only the ultimate recipient (e.g. the service
logic) will be able to make such a decision.

Regards,
.savas. 
Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 10:07:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:59 GMT