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

Isn't that what Chris Ferris' "Definition #1" does?

-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:12 AM
To: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org '
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!).    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.
>

Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 11:09:33 UTC