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

RE: Asynch Scenarios

From: <michael.eder@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:08:11 -0400
Message-ID: <6E2B2C4FBED4D84D80F52ECD1579D06809339B@bsebe101.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: <public-ws-async-tf@w3.org>
Hi David,
 
I think you're making assumptions about the nature of the two-way underlying protocol, and we should not do that at this time, or at least be a little bit clearer that were making this assumption.  How would your scenarios look differently if instead of assuming the in message went out on the underlying protocols request, it went out on the underlying protocols response?  At the very least, I think we should title the section Two Way Underlying Protocol (with back-channel for returning messages) to distinguish it from a Two Way Underlying Protocol (no channel for returning messages).  From the SOAP perspective I don't think there are any differences than with the one-way, but I'm not so sure about how this could be done with WSDL..
 
Kind Regards,
 
Michael Eder
 
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-async-tf-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-async-tf-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of ext David Orchard
Sent: May 06, 2005 07:20 PM
To: public-ws-async-tf@w3.org
Subject: Asynch Scenarios



I've posted an update based on Marc H's comments at 

http://www.pacificspirit.com/Authoring/async/async-scenarios.html

 

I'll continue to update as soon as I get comments.

 

Cheers,

Dave



Slide1.GIF
(image/gif attachment: Slide1.GIF)

Slide2.GIF
(image/gif attachment: Slide2.GIF)

Slide3.GIF
(image/gif attachment: Slide3.GIF)

Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2005 17:10:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Tuesday, 10 May 2005 17:10:21 GMT