Re: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed

"Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org> writes:
> 
> Shouldn't #3 be a SOAP request?  That would be more HTTP friendly.
> You'd either need an HTTP extension equivalent to SMTP TURN/ETRN to
> "turn the connection around", or create a tunnel via CONNECT, in order
> to make this a visible interaction to HTTP intermediaries.
> 
> Mark.

It could be, but then the whole pattern would not be a use of
the WSDL request/response MEP bound to the SOAP request/response
MEP being carried over an asynch protocol. 

One can of course do a similar thing with two one-way operations,
but its not the same thing. 

Sanjiva.