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

Re: Markup

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:24:25 +0900
To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Cc: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-id: <12980D5E-A7D3-45C9-83F3-020B53BE96BA@Sun.COM>
Given the discussion this morning I was thinking something like:

<UsingAddressing anonymous="Required|Allowed|Disallowed"/>

Where "Required" means you can only use anonymous ReplyTo, FaultTo,  
"Allowed" means you can use either anonymous or non-anonymous  
ReplyTo, FaultTo, and "Disallowed" means you can only use non- 
anonymous ReplyTo, FaultTo.

Marc.

On Nov 8, 2005, at 7:33 AM, David Hull wrote:

> I'm become uncomfortable with the wide use of "async", particularly  
> in the markup (but also in the general discussion).  The term  
> "async" refers to (at least) two separate things:
> The client code using a callback instead of waiting for a method  
> return.
> The server being able to send a response elsewhere than the  
> transport's built-in response channel.
> I would prefer that the WSDL describing the server take the  
> server's point of view:
> Rename the "AsyncOnly" flag (or async="always") to  
> "NoDirectResponse" (or "DirectResponse=false", default being true)
> I had previously mentioned having the Async element carry one or  
> the other (but not both) of "ProtocolBinding" or "WsdlBinding".   
> Instead, have UsingAddressing take one or the other (but not both)  
> of the following child elements:
> <ResponseProtocol>anyIRI</ResponseProtocol>
> <ResponseBinding>qname</ResponseBinding>
> As before, ResponseProtocol would be defined as shorthand for a  
> ResponseBinding with the desired effect.

---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.




Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2005 05:23:40 GMT

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