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

Re: i028: Implications of the presence of ReplyTo

From: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:45:37 -0800
Message-ID: <4194E8B1.2030000@coastin.com>
To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
CC: Marc.Hadley@sun.com, public-ws-addressing@w3.org

There are many examples: eg: send a purchase order as wsdl 
request/respose, with the supplier's poID in the wsdl response, which
serves as an ack that the PO has been accepted for processing by the 
supplier.    A callback address (which could use ReplyTo) could
be sent with the PO request, to send the Invoice to, in a later wsdl 
operation from the supplier to the customer.

In fact, the Reply To is not even needed for a wsdl request/response 
operation which is bound to a request response binding (e.g. soap/http 
Post binding), since the response comes back on the same tcp connection 
as the request.

Tom Rutt

Martin Gudgin wrote:

> 
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM [mailto:Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM] 
>>Sent: 12 November 2004 04:08
>>To: Martin Gudgin
>>Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
>>Subject: Re: i028: Implications of the presence of ReplyTo
>>
>>On Nov 11, 2004, at 3:01 PM, Martin Gudgin wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>>So it sounds like you'd be in favor of saying that presence
>>>>of ReplyTo
>>>>implies a request is expected and that absence indicates a one-way
>>>>message ?
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Nope. 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. However, I 
>>>      
>>>
>>don't think that
>>    
>>
>>>specifying [reply endpoint] necessarily means you expect a reply (in
>>>request/response stylee). Does that make sense. I'm saying
>>>
>>>	if a then b
>>>
>>>but I'm NOT saying
>>>
>>>	if b then a
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I understand what you mean but I'm not sure it makes sense ;-). If we 
>>could say that presence of ReplyTo indicates that a reply is expected 
>>then that would seem like a useful semantic. What's the purpose of a 
>>ReplyTo in a message that isn't expected to generate a reply ?
>>    
>>
>
>OK, it depends on what you mean when you say 'generate a reply'. Do you
>mean 
>
>a) 'generate a reply as part of the same WSDL MEP'
>
>or
>
>b) 'generate a reply, not necessarily part of the same WSDL MEP'
>
>I have certain protocols that do specify a [reply endpoint], do expect
>(hope?) that a reply to be sent at some point, but NOT as part of the
>same WSDL operation as the initial message.
>
>Cheers
>
>Gudge
>
>  
>

-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 16:47:46 GMT

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