RE: Another proposal for async extensions

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Hadley [mailto:Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM] 
> Sent: Thursday, Jun 16, 2005 12:50 PM
> To: Yalcinalp, Umit
> Cc: public-ws-async-tf@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Another proposal for async extensions
> 
> On Jun 16, 2005, at 3:37 PM, Yalcinalp, Umit wrote:
> >
> > I am comparing your proposal with the original SOAP 1.2 fix that I  
> > sent
> > a while back.
> >
> > You chose to indicate the NextState as Success, which indicates  
> > terminal
> > states of the soap request response MEP. It seems to me adding a
> > separate item to the table for 202 is necessary but not sufficient,
> > because you chose to terminate the MEP. Termination leaves the
> > definition of how the response message can be generated and 
> sent out,
> > which seems incomplete to me.
> >
> > I tried to take a stab at this, which I did not get 
> responses other  
> > than
> > DavidO.
> >
> > Perhaps you can clarify this point as to why you think that we can
> > terminate the MEP without considering what happens to the response
> > (NextState)
> >
>  From the perspective of the SOAP requestor, the MEP is 
> finished, the  
> 202 indicates that the responder received the message and is 
> planning  
> to honor the [reply endpoint] or [fault endpoint] contained within  
> it. On the responder side things continue after the 202 is sent,  
> you'll notice that I also added a delta such that the 
> responder jumps  
> from the receiving state to the sending state of a SOAP requestor  
> since it is now sending a message (the response) as a request in a  
> new HTTP connection.
> 
> Is that any clearer ?

Yep, thanks. 

I agree with you on this direction which was the original intent anyway.
Let me mull over and think about the details a bit longer. 

> 
> Marc.

--umit

> 
> ---
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
> Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 16 June 2005 19:57:57 UTC