- From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:06:11 -0000
- 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 UTC