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

Re: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:49:55 -0500
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0601201149i717ef731qa6f25b9d7dd0b330@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, WS-Addressing <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

On 1/20/06, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com> wrote:
> Sounds like it's a request-optional response HTTP binding that y'all are
> looking for.

Well, the other way of looking at it is that request-no-response (aka
"one way") is a special case of request-optional-response.

Mark.

>
> Dave
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mbaker@gmail.com [mailto:mbaker@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mark
> Baker
> > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:41 AM
> > To: David Orchard
> > Cc: Christopher B Ferris; WS-Addressing
> > Subject: Re: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc
> >
> > On 1/20/06, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com> wrote:
> > > So y'all are looking for a binding that says a 202 is allowed and if
> so,
> > > the response may or may not contain a SOAP envelope.  It's the
> > > preclusion of the soap envelope that's the problem?
> >
> > From my POV, yep!
> >
> > Mark.
>


--
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com
Received on Friday, 20 January 2006 19:50:05 GMT

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