Re: ISSUE : Extensible message exchange patterns

Hi Chris,

This sounds good. Would the next step then be to handle the existing
WSDL MEPs (e.g. request-response, sollicit-response) the same way, i.e.
to outsource their definition and give them a URI?

Jean-Jacques.

Christopher Ferris wrote:

> I'm at a loss here. While some vocabulary that defined
> MEPs with angle-brackets might be a good thing(tm), it isn't
> at all clear to me that it is needed. SOAP1.2 defines
> MEPs and assigns URIs to these formal definitions. It also
> recommends in the binding framework that MEPs be named
> with a URI[1].
>
> I think that rather than treat this through extensibility
> in WSDL, that a binding identify the MEPs it supports
> with a URI (or qname I suppose, but we may need to do some
> coordination on that).

Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 10:50:21 UTC