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

Re: Markup

From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:27:02 -0500
To: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Cc: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-id: <43703726.6060505@tibco.com>

+1

Marc Hadley wrote:

> 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 05:27:11 GMT

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