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

RE: A different binding example (was RE: Binding)

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 21:17:55 -0700
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E404B6D8A6@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: edwink@collaxa.com, "'Champion, Mike'" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edwin Khodabakchian [mailto:edwink@collaxa.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 5:21 PM
> To: 'Champion, Mike'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: A different binding example (was RE: Binding)
> I am happy to take a stab at it given that this use case is 
> close to the
> type of applications and flow our customers develop.

Thanks!  This is helpful.

> I would create a Web Queue resource (
> https://www.collaxa.com/expensereport ). When a developer 

How critical is the Web Queue resource to the scenario?  It would be nice,
for the purposes of the WSA document, to have a "pure" REST approach
sketched out. [Not that I mind the plug for your product :-) ]

> If I am not sure that the POST was received successfully, because the
> connection failed and I did not get the URL, I would POST the same
> message again. The server would use a correlation set to determine if
> the message has already been received or not.

The "correlation set" is mentioned as a bit of an afterthought.  It would be
nice if it were more closely integrated into the sketch of the solution.
Would the correlation set be, or be based on, the URI returned from the
original POST?  

> The server software, implemented in perl, Java, "manual fax" would
> process the expense report asynchronously in the background. 
> When it is
> completed or if an exception occurs, it would post to the callback
> location specified in the request, the confirmation or fault XML
> document.

Received on Monday, 6 January 2003 23:18:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:02 UTC