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

A suggestion for async resolution.... :o)

From: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 13:08:51 +0000
To: mark.nottingham@bea.com
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE9102BE2.D30E4F81-ON802570B2.00453F14-802570B2.004838B9@uk.ibm.com>
Mark,

Please may I make a suggestion which might help us reach swifter 
resolution to the issues tomorrow?

We have 4 possible proposals on the table:
1. (Initial SAP/Oracle/IBM proposal) Superceded
2. Marc's proposal based on 1+ Anish's friendly amendment
3. David's proposal
4. Umit's/my proposal 

Rather than discuss the above as complete proposals, could we separate 
into composable functions and discuss as such?  I.e.:

A. Specification of async only or sync only at binding level
     Should we opt for:
             asyncOnly attribute from proposal 2 OR wsaw:Async from 
proposal 3 OR no additional flag from proposal 4 (OR other)

B. Specification of binding for async response
     Should we opt for
           wsaw:Async binding semantics from proposal 2 OR 
wsaw:ResponseBinding semantics from proposal 3 OR no response binding 
specification (OR other)

C. Specification of async at the interface/op level
     Should we opt for 
           Anish's friendly amendment to 2 OR no specification (OR other)

There may be finer points that I have missed, but this structure might 
help focus the debate. 

Many thanks
Katy
Received on Monday, 7 November 2005 13:09:09 GMT

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