W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-meps@w3.org > April 2003

Re: UC1 updated

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: 02 Apr 2003 17:33:08 -0500
To: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Cc: public-ws-desc-meps@w3.org
Message-Id: <1049322788.25985.2544.camel@jfouffa.w3.org>

On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 16:58, David Booth wrote:
> I've added some pseudo-code to use case UC1 to illustrate its intent: 
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/meps-vs-iops/meps-vs-iops_clean.htm
> I probably don't have it entirely right, but at least it's a starting point 
> for discussion.

So, my understanding from this morning was (but I was doing two things
at the time...):

the interface generated would be the same, independently of the MEP or
IOP:

interface SupplierInterface {
  PriceResponseMessage getPrice(PriceRequestMessage);
}

This is a stretch since IOP#2 does not imply that you would receive a
response after sending a request but, while I do make an assertion that
you will receive the reply, I do not indicate how. However, if you use
the IOP#2, you will still have to indicate in the binding how the
response will come back:
- you can use the MEP#2b and bind it with HTTP.
 in such case, no real problem, it's almost similar to WSDL 1.1 (or at
least my understanding of WSDL 1.1 :)
- you can use the MEP#2a and bind it to SMTP.
 in such case, you will also need to provide a reply-to address and
ensure that the WS engine will have a way to get the mail once it is
delivered at the specified address.

Philippe
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2003 17:33:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Friday, 25 March 2005 11:17:39 GMT