W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > November 2005

RE: Issue 59 alternate proposal

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 22:05:47 -0800
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF1416706D@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.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 Yalcinalp, Umit
<snip/> 
> Our proposal specifically defined how the request-response would use
two
> distinct HTTP connections, 202, etc.  

<snip/>

I think it's standard practice to call how a request response uses a
protocol including the protocol status codes a "binding".

My concern with doing away with MEPs completely is exactly shown by this
proposal.  

Without any kind of protocol/lower level MEP, it is impossible to talk
about what happens with request response without talking about a
particular binding, in your case SOAP HTTP.  In a binding extension that
controls interaction patterns like usingAddressing, you end up either a)
not talking about meps/bindings/protocols at all, which is very
unusable, or b) talking about a specific binding/protocol, which is
highly undesirable from a re-use, layering, modularity, and
"well-factoring" perspective.  Well factored and modularized design of
specs is one of the tenets of the Web Services architecture, or at least
so it's been said.

Cheers,
Dave  
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 06:06:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:10 GMT