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 16:22:56 -0800
Message-ID: <42489FE0.9040001@oracle.com>
To: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
CC: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>, public-ws-async-tf@w3.org

The minutes of the concall are located at:
http://www.w3.org/2005/03/23-ws-async-minutes.html

HTH

-Anish
--

Yalcinalp, Umit wrote:
> My recollection is that the "in" segment is not optional, although there was some mutterings about it which I did not quite catch, probably due to the fact that we have also out* MEPs that we need to deal with. 
> 
> My understanding is the following chart with respect to the relationships between the WSDL MEPs and the uber SOAP mep (in-optional-out):
> 
> WSDL in ==> SOAP in-optional-out MEP. The optional output message is never generated, but the http response would be generated to be 202. 
> 
> WSDL robust-in => SOAP in-optional-out MEP. The output message will contain the SOAP fault only. 
> 
> WSDL in-optional-out => SOAP in-optional-out MEP. (Works only when non-anonymous ReplyTo is not used). 
> 
> AFAIK, we have touched upon, but did not agree whether WSDL in-out may yield two separate SOAP MEPs when ws-addressing is engaged, but not in the last concall. 
> 
> Any comments/corrections are welcome. 
> 
> 
> --umit
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-async-tf-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-async-tf-request@w3.org] 
> Sent: Monday, Mar 28, 2005 1:50 PM
> To: public-ws-async-tf@w3.org
> Subject: Ueber-MEPs and points North
> 
> 
> 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 Tuesday, 29 March 2005 00:23:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Tuesday, 29 March 2005 00:23:42 GMT