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 09:07:44 -0800
Message-ID: <4194EDE0.8040002@coastin.com>
To: tom@coastin.com
CC: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, Marc.Hadley@sun.com, public-ws-addressing@w3.org



Tom Rutt wrote:

>
> 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.

I was confused when I wrote the above sentence.  I now feel strongly 
that for the above example the callback epr for the sender to send
the invoice to should be part of the PO request input message, carried 
in the SOAP body, and should never use wsa:replyTO.

I think that wsa:replyTo should apply only to a single MEP instance.

Tom Rutt

>
> 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 17:09:53 GMT

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