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

Re: How does MakeConnection interact with request-response exchanges?

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:57:30 -0400
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF55CA8846.53BFBF4A-ON852571ED.006D8992-852571ED.006DA284@us.ibm.com>
  I would suggest you bring this up on the RX mailing lists - either on 
the public comment list or on the real mailing list - but I suspect the 
WSA WG isn't really the right spot for it.  :-)

Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
09/18/2006 03:52 PM

"public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

How does MakeConnection interact with request-response exchanges?

I?ve been puzzling through the spaghetti of dependant specs for a while, 
and haven?t determined conclusively how to reconcile the WSDL in Appendix 
B with the MakeConnection example in Appendix C.6.
The WSDL describes request-response operations such as CreateSequence, 
with input CreateSequence and output CreateSequenceResponse messages. 
While the WSDL doesn?t describe a binding for this, it is easy to imagine 
a straightforward way to bind this to a SOAP/HTTP request-response.
However, the MakeConnection example shows a MakeConnection message 
resulting in a CreateSequence response message, which then results in a 
CreateSequenceResponse messages, followed by an HTTP 202.  That is, the 
first request corresponds to a one-way message (no problem here), the 
first response corresponds to a request of a request-response, and the 
second request corresponds to the response of a request-response.
What standard binding could be used to describe this behavior?  I can?t 
find any of the specs (WSDL 1.1, WSDL 2.0, WS-I BP) that explicitly say 
the WSDL-described request message must be mapped to an HTTP request, but 
I?m also not aware of any implementation that allows requests to be mapped 
to anything else.  Is this just a too-obvious-to-state loophole or am I 
missing something?
Received on Monday, 18 September 2006 19:57:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:14 UTC