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

Re: Proposed issue text

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 21:40:29 -0700
Message-Id: <02148abdd32ad11962e0dcc8a1960fc6@bea.com>
Cc: <public-ws-async-tf@w3.org>
To: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>


In terms of justification, I think the issue is more fundamental; the  
WS-A charter says that we will define

> [t]he use of these abstract message properties in the context of all  
> WSDL 1.1 or WSDL 2.0 Message Exchange Patterns, including the  
> asynchronous use of these MEPs.

That's pretty specific; we have to define how MAPs are used in *all*  
MEPs asynchronously.

The issue description can follow from this; in WSDL 1.1, we we nee to  
describe how to do Request-Response or Solicit-Response asynchronously  
with MAPs, and in WSDL 2.0 we need to be able to do In-Out,  
In-Optional-Out, Out-In or Out-Optional-In asynchronously with MAPs.

Because those MEPs and their bindings to particular protocols need some  
work to enable asynchrony, we have some dependancies on that work being  

That's just my reading, of course.

On Apr 10, 2005, at 8:50 PM, Glen Daniels wrote:

> Hi folks:
> Here's a swipe at text for a WSA issue - I tried to make it general and
> leave room for other (or sub-) issues, as discussed on the call last
> week.  If we can get some agreement on this before the addressing call,
> I'd like us to put it forth then.  What do you think?
> ------------------
> Both the Async Task Force [1] and Microsoft [2] have introduced a  
> series
> of use cases which entail progressively more complex uses of
> WS-Addressing in order to achieve successful communication using a
> variety of message exchange patterns and levels of asynchrony.  At
> present, these cases may theoretically be possible, but rely upon a
> large amount of "out of spec" agreement.  In order to interoperably
> enable these use cases, changes/additions are going to be necessary to
> both SOAP and WSDL in order to a) clearly specify the desired runtime
> behavior at all levels, and b) ensure that an interoperable description
> technology exists in order to communicate the correct semantics.  Until
> these needs are satisfied, the Addressing WG will not have accomplished
> its work.
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-async-tf/2005Feb/
>     (look for "use case" in the subject)
> [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Mar/ 
> 0209.ht
> ml
> ------------------
> Thanks,
> --Glen

Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Monday, 11 April 2005 04:40:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:48:42 UTC