W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > August 2004

RE: SOAP 11 Binding: Design Questions

From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:03:54 -0400
Message-ID: <5B10E50E14A4594EB1B5566B69AD9407068E6836@maileast>
To: Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>, 'Jean-Jacques Moreau' <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org

First, I took this route and found it to be little hacky. In the first
draft, I created new URIs and populated them using default binding rules.

Regards,
Asir S Vedamuthu
asirv at webmethods dot com
http://www.webmethods.com/

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 2:23 PM
To: 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'; Sanjiva Weerawarana
Cc: Asir Vedamuthu; www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: RE: SOAP 11 Binding: Design Questions



We discussed this question at the F2F and decided [1],

* not to invent these URIs

* and rely on Interface Operation.{message exchange pattern} property. In
SOAP 11, there are two implicit MEPs: request response in SOAP 11 spec and
one-way in WS-I Basic Profile. That is,

http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/in-out = SOAP 11 request response
http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/in-only = one-way in WS-I Basic Profile

* and, safely ignore {soap mep} property

Well, this is my summary.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/08/03-ws-desc-irc

Regards,
Asir

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:41 AM
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
Cc: Asir Vedamuthu; www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Re: SOAP 11 Binding: Design Questions


I'm assuming it would be our WSDL SOAP 1.1 binding that would define it.

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

>I'm confused - which SOAP 1.1 WSDL binding defines a the indicated MEP
>URI?
>
>Sanjiva.
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
>To: "Asir Vedamuthu" <asirv@webmethods.com>
>Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
>Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 10:15 PM
>Subject: Re: SOAP 11 Binding: Design Questions
>
>
>  
>
>>If most SOAP stacks are now WS-I compliant (which I assume they are),
>>then I think we should support this second MEP.
>>
>>JJ.
>>
>>Asir Vedamuthu wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Q5. WS-I Basic Profile 1.0 defines a new message exchange pattern:
>>>      
>>>
>one-way
>  
>
>>>(R2714, R2750, R2727) [4]. SOAP 11 binding provides a URI for this MEP,
>>>
>>>* http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/soap11/mep/one-way
>>>* ..
>>>
>>>Shall we allow it?
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 23:04:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:32 GMT