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

RE: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 20:45:46 -0800
Message-ID: <2BA6015847F82645A9BB31C7F9D64165F9F999@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
To: "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>, "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, "WS-Addressing" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Francisco Curbera
> Sent: Friday, Jan 20, 2006 11:04 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: Christopher B Ferris; WS-Addressing; 
> public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> Subject: RE: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc
> 
> 
> I agree with Chris; the binding proposed by Dave seems to be 
> based on the
> very simplistic idea that the application level view of an interaction
> ("one way") determines ALL message exchanges between the 
> parties, leaving
> out the possibility of a compatible protocol level exchange. This just
> doesn't capture the reality of QoS rich systems.

+1. 

If there is concern that the name is misleading to what we are trying to
achieve (i.e. calling it a one-way binding), we could call it something
else request-optional-response binding comes to mind. I am perhaps
speculating, but it seems to me that this will also be more aligned with
what is being pursued at XMLP. 

My concern is to restrict ourselves and contradict other specifications
which may want to build on top of WS-A, such as WS-RX, by being too
restrictive. 

 
> 
> Note also that whatever the content of the proposed note it 
> will not be
> normative in any case.
> 
> Paco
> 
> 
> 
>                                                               
>                                                               
>                    
>                       "David Orchard"                         
>                                                               
>                    
>                       <dorchard@bea.com>              To:     
>   Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS                      
>                    
>                       Sent by:                        cc:     
>   "WS-Addressing" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>               
>                    
>                       public-ws-addressing-req        
> Subject:  RE: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc               
>                            
>                       uest@w3.org                             
>                                                               
>                    
>                                                               
>                                                               
>                    
>                                                               
>                                                               
>                    
>                       01/20/2006 01:40 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 Monday, 23 January 2006 04:42:34 GMT

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