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

RE: Revised Asynch Binding

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 10:28:33 -0700
Message-ID: <EDDE2977F3D216428E903370E3EBDDC9032B8B53@MAIL01.stc.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Even if we are currently only talking in abstract terms about the
capabilities needed to support asynchronous messaging (since we cannot
refer to a concrete established standard), I suggest that we explicitly
mention in our wording both the concept of addressing and the concept of
correlation/reference, given the fact that they are both essential
components of asynchronous messaging. 

If the industry settles on WS-Addressing and/or WS-MD, all the better:
both concepts are already supported in those two specs.

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 10:05 AM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Revised Asynch Binding
> 
> 
> 
> "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> writes:
> > 
> > Isn't a messageID also required to correlate the request and the 
> > response, since they cannot be correlated by being on the same 
> > channel? Both WS-Address and WS-MD have the capability of carrying 
> > such an ID, but the two concepts are orthogonal and other 
> addressing 
> > mechanism might not include a messageID capability.
> > 
> > Ugo
> 
> It certainly may be- and if you're using WS-Addressing you 
> can deal with that by putting the message ID in the ReplyTo 
> EPR .. that way it'll be there when the reply comes and 
> you'll know what its about. (There's the RelatesTo property 
> too.) If another 
> addressing mechanism doesn't support such a feature then its 
> pretty much busted IMO.
> 
> In any case, this is all hooks we're putting to avoid a 
> political problem at this time IMO. For the success of the 
> Web services platform, it is ABSOLUTELY critical that there 
> be one and only one addressing/referenceing/whatchamacallit 
> standard. Until we get there everything is and will be broken.
> 
> As far as WSDL is concerned, if we can create a solution that 
> can work with that standard then we're in business. In the meantime, 
> it better work with the current bevvy of candidates too.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2004 13:29:05 GMT

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