W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > July 2007

RE: Asynchronous calls

From: GUILLON Benoit <guillon@sungard-finance.fr>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:36:33 +0200
Message-ID: <D8000E95FE47524AABFC8589C61FA28D01A17C37@hera.sungard-finance.fr>
To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Hi,

 

Thanks for your replies. I think I'd better be WS-A compliant if I plan to use it - or drop it if my requirements keep the same.

 

There is still a little something that makes me dither: can I call the "reply-to" endpoint several times to notify client that the long operation has started, has generated a first result set and finally has ended? Must these replies conform to the XSD schema of the response type declared in my WSDL? It seems I'm touching WS-Eventing area ...

 

Benoit

 

________________________________

De : Rogers, Tony [mailto:Tony.Rogers@ca.com] 
Envoyé : mardi 10 juillet 2007 00:19
À : David Illsley; GUILLON Benoit
Cc : public-ws-addressing@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Objet : RE: Asynchronous calls

 

To be a little pedantic, what you will get is an HTTP 202   *OR*   a fault - you will never get both; you should get exactly one. The 202 is the response saying "got the message, working on it, I didn't see anything obviously wrong with it before I sent this 202 response" - at that point you know it has read and interpreted some of the headers at least.

 

Tony Rogers

CA, Inc

Senior Architect, Development

tony.rogers@ca.com

 

________________________________

From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of David Illsley
Sent: Tue 10-Jul-07 5:57
To: GUILLON Benoit
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: Asynchronous calls

 

Hi,
What you will get when using the WS-A implementations I'm aware of is an
HTTP 202 indicating that the message was successfully received, and if
there is a fault, the fault will be sent to the ReplyTo/FaultTo per WS-A
Core. Anything over and above that in the direction you suggest isn't in
any specification I'm aware of so you'd have to define that yourself and
make your infrastructure support it (which isn't something I'd advise).
David

David Illsley
Web Services Development
MP211, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
+44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049)
david.illsley@uk.ibm.com



From:
"GUILLON Benoit" <guillon@sungard-finance.fr>
To:
<public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Date:
07/09/2007 01:58 PM
Subject:
Asynchronous calls



Hello,

I?m working on publishing long operations via WebServices: client sends a
message via HTTP to my service which starts the long operation. Client
gets the result later in a JMS queue or its own endpoint gets called with
the response. To achieve this, I plan to use WS-Addressing for message
correlation and reply-to endpoint definition.

However, I want my service to return a first reply saying ?Ok I managed to
start the long operation (or not and why)? in the HTTP response of
client?s call whatever the ?reply-to? field was.

I was wondering if this use-case was still compliant with WS-Addressing or
if it was a bad use of ?reply-to?.

Best regards

Benoît Guillon * NTIC * SunGard * Asset Arena Investment Accounting * 7
rue Royale, 173 Bureaux de la Colline, Bâtiment E, 92213 Saint-Cloud
Cedex, France * Tel +33 1 49 11 31 87 * Fax +33 1 49 11 30 30 *














CONFIDENTIALITY:   This email (including any attachments) may contain
confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized
disclosure or use is prohibited.  If you received this email in error,
please notify the sender and delete this email from your system.  Thank you


CONFIDENTIALITÉ: Ce courrier électronique (pièces jointes incluses) peut contenir des informations confidentielles, propriétaires et privilégiées,
dont la divulgation ou l'utilisation non-autorisée est interdite.
Si vous avez reçu ce courrier électronique par erreur, nous vous remercions de bien vouloir avertir l'expéditeur et détruire ce courrier électronique
de votre système.
Merci.
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2007 08:48:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:19 GMT