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

RE: Proposed issue text

From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:45:29 -0400
Message-ID: <80A43FC052CE3949A327527DCD5D6B27F4A2A5@MAIL01.bedford.progress.com>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Cc: <public-ws-async-tf@w3.org>

Hi Mark:

> 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  
> done.

OK, so how about :

Our charter indicates that we must specify how the MAPs are to be used
in order to achieve asynchrony with all WSDL 1.1 and 2.0 MEPs ([insert
list here]).  At present there is no interoperable way to do this,
partially due to limitations or omissions which exist in the current
SOAP and WSDL specs.  In order for the WS-Addressing group to declare
victory (and build a functional test suite), these limitations/omissions
must be remedied.


P.S.  With regard to the MEP list above, I assume we also want to add
Robust-In-Only to the WSDL 2.0 list.  Also, do we want to say anything
about using MAPs as the "secret sauce" enabling Out-Only and its ilk?
Received on Monday, 11 April 2005 12:45:42 UTC

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