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

RE: i028: Implications of the presence of ReplyTo

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:34:01 -0000
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF2709DD44@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
[big snip]
 
>  I think that if you expect a reply, you MUST specify [reply
> endpoint]. So in request-response style MEPs [reply endpoint] would
> always be specified in the request message. 
 
sorry to butt-in, and sorry if i'm stating the obvious (as usual), 
i'm aware that i should tred very carefully before sticking my oar 
between two XMLP veterens on this subject.
 
i think this issue has at it's core how dependent messages are 
upon the underlying layers. AIUI, Gudge is coming at this problem 
from the POV of the transport independence of  SOAP messages,  
whereas i believe Marc is thinking about the exchange of messages 
over transports such as HTTP, SMTP, MQSeries, etc all of which 
can provide a return path for messages, no?
 
so i wondered if it might be helpful to first look at issue i007, since 
that could well help here, in particular if we are able to define the 
order of precedence between values such as ReplyTo and action 
obtained from:
 
- message body processing,
- ws-addressing headers
- other SOAP processing
- the underlying transport
 
Paul
Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 16:33:25 GMT

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