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

Re: Ueber-MEPs and points North

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:17:46 -0800
Message-ID: <4248909A.8050204@oracle.com>
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
CC: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>, public-ws-async-tf@w3.org

I was mixing my MEPs.
I should have said, 'SOAP-response MEP [1] would not be covered by this 
über-MEP', instead of 'out-only would not be covered by this über-MEP'.

-Anish
--

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#soapresmep

David Orchard wrote:
> 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 23:23:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Monday, 28 March 2005 23:23:43 GMT