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

Re: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:25:37 -0800
Message-ID: <43DE7641.4000609@oracle.com>
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
CC: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, WS-Addressing <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Thinking more on this, isn't this still a one-way?
I.e., a SOAP envelope can come back on the HTTP 202 response without 
making it a request-response.

202 is intentionally non-committal. It says 'Accepted'. A RM-level ack 
does not mean that the SOAP envelope is a 'response' to the 'request' in 
the HTTP request.

I think it is fine to call it one-way (as you did in your previous 
formulation). This is important, as there aren't any SOAP MEPs in SOAP 
1.1 so everything is in the context of a WSDL operation. In the case of 
status code 202, there isn't a WSDL level response as it is a WSDL 
one-way operation.


David Orchard wrote:
> Sounds like it's a request-optional response HTTP binding that y'all are
> looking for.
> 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!
Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 20:25:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:12 UTC