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

RE: i028: Implications of the presence of ReplyTo

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:03:37 -0800
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633803F292D8@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Brinild" <brinild@yahoo.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Brinild
> Sent: 12 November 2004 02:02
> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: i028: Implications of the presence of ReplyTo
> 
> 
> 
> --- 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.

I didn't say you couldn't figure out the mep by inspecting the headers.
Just that the mere prescence/absence of a given header isn't enough to
figure out the MEP. In general I believe you can use the *value* of
wsa:Action to determine the MEP. Of course, if the actions URIs of the
two operations you mention above are identical then this won't help :-(

Gudge

> 
> =====
> Brinild@yahoo.com
> http://brinild.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 		
> __________________________________ 
> Do you Yahoo!? 
> Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
> www.yahoo.com 
>  
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 11:03:45 GMT

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