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

Re: wire stack words and diagram

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 19:51:50 +0900
To: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Cc: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20021003105150.GG24232@w3.org>

* Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> [2002-10-01 09:18-0700]
> >This has to be contrasted with other features (e.g. signature) 
> >that may leave outside the binding, e.g. expressed as SOAP header 
> >block(s).
> What if I had a Request-Response MEP and a MOM-based binding. In that case,
> I would probably need to put the return address information in some header,
> so that the receiving service can know where to send the (asynchronous)
> answer back to. Would you consider that header to be part of the binding?

According to the SOAP 1.2 specification[1], a feature expressed as a
header is a SOAP module, and will be processed according to the SOAP
processing model. Binding features, as I understand them, result from
the carrying of the message with certain properties and do not show in
the message.

Request-response can be achieved via a module (e.g. specifying a
reference and a reply address) or via a binding (e.g. using an HTTP



  1. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/#extensibility
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2002 06:51:57 UTC

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