W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > October 2002

Re: wire stack words and diagram

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 18:07:16 +0200
Message-ID: <3D99C834.9050702@crf.canon.fr>
To: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
CC: www-ws-arch@w3.org

Sorry I was somewhat cryptic.

I was trying to say that SOAP MEPs don't really have an existence 
outside SOAP bindings. SOAP MEPs are defined as "abstract" state 
machines (e.g. Request-Response MEP[1]), and these state machines 
are implemented/turned concrete by SOAP bindings (e.g. HTTP 

If the underlying protocol supports the MEP natively, then the 
binding is (rather) straightforward (e.g. HTTP binding[2]). If 
the underlying protocol does not support the MEP, then the 
binding can be more complex (e.g. EMail binding[3]); the binding 
implementation/glue layer has to do more work.

This has to be contrasted with other features (e.g. signature) 
that may leave outside the binding, e.g. expressed as SOAP header 


[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-soap12-email-20020626#NE69

Ugo Corda wrote:
>>SOAP 1.2 also introduces Message Exchange
>>Patterns (MEPs), which are a 3rd type of "feature"
>>(supported by bindings only).
> I don't fully understand the "supported by bindings only" part, because it
> seems to imply that a particular MEP can exist only if the underlying
> binding naturally supports it. For example, I could have a Request-Response
> MEP with an HTTP binding but not with Email binding, which is evidently not
> true.
> SOAP 1.2 Part 1, section 3.3, also says "A MEP MAY be supported by one or
> more underlying protocol binding instances": a MAY, not a MUST.
> Ugo
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2002 12:06:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:00 UTC