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

Re: Async req-res: addendum to marc's proposal

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 21:09:58 -0800
Message-ID: <436EE1A6.9080903@oracle.com>
To: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

I would like to point out that this is almost the same as example 3-8 in 
DaveO's proposal [1].

-Anish
--

[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Nov/0014.html

Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> 
> What we are talking about in the various proposals for issue i059 is 
> about changing bindings for a req-res operation to allow:
> 1) the request and response to be sent out over different HTTP-connections
> 2) WSDL authors to specify bindings to req-res operations that allow the 
> request and response to use different WSDL Binding(s).
> 
> None of this is about "async" from a client programmer POV. They are 
> about bindings. Bindings specify how the message is serialized, and 
> bound to the transport including whether different connections are used 
> to send the request and response. For example, an SMTP binding will 
> inherently using multiple connections. As another example, I'm free to 
> write a single binding for a req-res operation which says the the 
> request is sent over HTTP and the response over SMTP.
> 
> There is another requirement for 'async' which is at the abstract WSDL 
> level. Programing models and client-side APIs are generated by tools 
> using the portType/interface information. Having a 'async' marker in the 
> portType/interface as a hint to the WSDL processor is quite important 
> from a client POV -- since most tools generate client-side APIs from the 
> abstract WSDL. Pl. note that such a marker is only a hint, which says 
> that the response will very likely take a long time. This is not to say 
> that async apis cannot be layered over sync transport or vice versa. 
> This isn't about the binding/transport, it is about providing a hint to 
> the WSDL processor. I.e., one can use an async portType level maker and 
> use the default SOAP/HTTP binding that uses a single connection. On the 
> flip side one is also not prevented from using an non-async req-res 
> abstract operation from being bound to an async SMTP binding. Such a 
> marker allows the WSDL processor, if it chooses to do so, to generate 
> client-side APIs/programming model that takes into account that the 
> request and response is separated potentially by a large time interval.
> 
> I would therefore like to propose an addendum to Marc's proposal [1] -- 
> we allow an attribute called wsaw:Async of type xs:boolean (restricted 
> to the value 'true') on the wsdl11:portType, 
> wsdl11:portType/wsdl1:operation, wsdl20:interface, 
> wsdl20:interface/wsdl20:operation element. The presence of this 
> attribute is a hint to the WSDL processor that the response and request 
> MAY be separated by a large time interval.
> 
> -Anish
> -- 
> 
> [1] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Nov/0003.html
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 7 November 2005 05:09:46 GMT

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