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

RE: Ueber-MEPs and points North

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:36:03 -0800
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF0E88B921@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, "David Hull" <dmh@tibco.com>
Cc: <public-ws-async-tf@w3.org>

Unless the WSDL "out-only" was "bound" to a SOAP "in-optional-out" MEP that was then constrained to "in-only".  There's a difference between the direction of the WSDL mep and the direction of the SOAP mep.  

Oh joy.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-async-tf-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-async-tf-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Anish Karmarkar
> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 2:21 PM
> To: David Hull
> Cc: public-ws-async-tf@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Ueber-MEPs and points North
> 
> 
> David,
> 
> The über-MEP that we discussed on the call was in-optional-out.
> IIRC, this was also a SOAP MEP and *not* a WSDL MEP.
> Therefore, 'out-only' would not be covered by this über-MEP.
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> David Hull wrote:
> >
> > For the benefit of those who, through nobody's fault but their own,
> > didn't make the last conference call (and for anyone else just reading
> > the list and not on the concalls), could someone outline how the new
> > "über-MEP" would work?  From context, I gather that it would be composed
> > of an "in" segment and an "out" segment, both optional, with "in-only",
> > "out-only" and "in-out" falling out as special cases.  Is this basically
> > correct?
> >
> >
Received on Monday, 28 March 2005 22:45:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Monday, 28 March 2005 22:45:29 GMT