W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-async-tf@w3.org > April 2005

Re: MEPS Part II: SOAP

From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:58:16 -0400
To: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Cc: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, public-ws-async-tf@w3.org
Message-id: <4256E258.80106@tibco.com>
Marc Hadley wrote:

> On Apr 8, 2005, at 3:23 PM, David Hull wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> To be honest I don't think there's much to choose between them. I 
>>> think we should just go with optional-in, optional-out and be done 
>>> with it.
>>>
>> What would [in]-[out] look like, in the HTTP binding for example, 
>> without the "in"?
>>
> It would look exactly like the existing SOAP-Response MEP.

That's what I expected.

I think this is certainly an avenue worth considering.  I'm personally 
undecided as to which approach will work best and provide the easiest 
migration path.  What /is/ clear to me now is that

    * The sender needs a way of knowing when the MEP is complete.
    * The sender needs a way to say whether it cares what comes back
    * If it does care, it needs a way of knowing whether the result was
      a message, a transport fault or nothing.

>
> Marc.
>
> ---
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
> Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
>
>
Received on Friday, 8 April 2005 19:58:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Friday, 8 April 2005 19:58:25 GMT