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

Re: Proposed issue text

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:18:38 -0700
Message-ID: <425ACD8E.1060505@oracle.com>
To: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, public-ws-async-tf@w3.org

Glen Daniels wrote:
> 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 
>>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  
> 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.
> --Glen
> 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?

Since, MAPs are in the SOAP message (typically), I'm not sure how it 
helps enabling out-only. Don't things like SOAP-Response MEP and the 
corresponding HTTP binding fit the bill here better than MAPs?

Received on Monday, 11 April 2005 19:19:01 UTC

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