W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > February 2003

Re: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility

From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:41:33 -0500
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-id: <004701c2dda5$28a5ebe0$1702a8c0@WorkGroup>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:11 AM
Subject: RE: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility


>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Geoff Arnold [mailto:Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:59 AM
> > To: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org '
> > Subject: Re: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility
> >
> >
> >
> > +1. And we need to be consistent with this when [if] we decide to
> > define "synchronous" and "asynchronous".....
> >
> Could you elaborate?  Maybe you mean that the definition of synch/asynch
> should be independent of the protocol?
>
> I think that would help (I'm warming to the synch/asynch topic at long
> last!).

Careful!  The pond may thaw, the fish awake.

 >  Perhaps if we defined synch/asynch at the level of MEPs rather
> than protocol-level messages (not to mention implementation details such
as
> "blocking") we might get some agreement.

This is in essence my "counter-proposal", to define "synchronous r/r",
"asynchronous r/r" and let the bigger fish continue their slumber.

WM

> >
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 09:41:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:15 GMT