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

RE: NEW ISSUE: Support for asynchronous / multi-MEP usage of web services

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 02:01:02 +0200
Message-ID: <99CA63DD941EDC4EBA897048D9B0061D13021488@uspalx20a.pal.sap.corp>
To: <public-ws-async-tf@w3.org>

Umm. I just sent my formulation of the issue and I see that you sent
your formulation to WS-Addressing as well.  Did I miss something
yesterday as I took an action item to write this down at last week's
concall [1]? 

My impression was that we would both writeup the issue and decide what
to file with WS-Addressing. Since there is no minutes for yesterday's
concall, it is not clear whether a decision was made to go ahead and
file yours.  

What is important is that in the end as long as we have a comprehensive
issue that is logged and addressed, but I would have not spent an hour
or so thinking/writing and positioning it if my action item was already
disposed of :-(. 


[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/04/06-ws-async-minutes.html

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-async-tf-request@w3.org
Sent: Thursday, Apr 14, 2005 3:57 PM
To: public-ws-async-tf@w3.org; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: NEW ISSUE: Support for asynchronous / multi-MEP usage of web

Title: Support for asynchronous / multi-MEP usage of web services


This issue serves as a placeholder for the stuff falling into the
"async" bag.  How do we correctly and interoperably specify the behavior
for callbacks, asynch responses, etc. over multiple transports in a
consistent way?  How do the various layers of MEPs (application, WSDL,
SOAP) bind to each other?  Etc.


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.  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,
and WS-Addressing must also appropriately adapt (if necessary) to
support these patterns.

Proposal to move forward:

This issue is now being dealt with in the large by the Async TF [1],
which any member of WSDL/WS-Addressing/XMLP may join.  The task force
has already presented several questions to the WGs, and hopes to bring a
set of concrete proposals/recommendations to the floor for consideration
in the coming weeks.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-async-tf/
Received on Friday, 15 April 2005 00:01:14 UTC

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