W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > January 2006

RE: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:32:07 -0800
Message-ID: <E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9C632CB0@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "WS-Addressing" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
A receiver figures out whether it wants to send a SOAP envelope over the
HTTP connection or not.  If it doesn't want to send a SOAP envelope, it
can use this binding.  If it does, it can use the current SOAP 11 HTTP
binding.

 

Dave

 

________________________________

From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:17 AM
To: David Orchard
Cc: WS-Addressing
Subject: RE: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc

 


How does one distinguish between this binding and the current SOAP11
HTTP binding from 
the perspective of the receiving node? 

Cheers, 

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295 

"David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com> wrote on 01/20/2006 01:40:07 PM:

> If you're returning a soap envelope in an HTTP response, by 
> definition you're not using a one-way binding.   
>   
> This doesn't affect the MEP in play because there is no MEP with soap
1.1.   
>   
> Dave 
>   
> 
> From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 10:34 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: WS-Addressing; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc 
>   
> 
> <decloak> 
> 
> Dave, 
> 
> I have *significant* heartburn with this as it precludes the use 
> case of sending a 
> WS-RM SequenceAcknowledgement (or other infrastructure-level signal)
as a 
> SOAP envelope in the HTTP response. 
> 
> The use case is considered to be of critical importance to a number 
> of customers 
> with which I have dealt who want to leverage WS-RM for both oneway and
asynch
> request response message flows between business partners. 
> 
> This proposed binding simply carries forward the mistake that the WS-I
BP 1.x
> made with R2714 and R2750 (which I argued against at the time). 
> 
> I've got another post still in draft responding to another thread on
> this matter 
> that I will be sending shortly. 
> 
> </decloak> 
> 
> Cheers, 
> 
> Christopher Ferris
> STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
> phone: +1 508 377 9295 
> 
> public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 01/20/2006 01:09:47 PM:
> 
> > Here's an xml spec xml and html version of a one-way HTTP Binding. 
> >   
> > Cheers, 
> > Dave[attachment "soap11onewayhttpbinding.xml" deleted by Christopher
> > B Ferris/Waltham/IBM] [attachment "soap11onewayhttpbinding.html" 
> > deleted by Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM] 
Received on Friday, 20 January 2006 19:32:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:11 GMT