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

Re: Revised Asynch Binding

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:28:59 +0600
Message-ID: <02e601c467ea$49674790$30a63109@LANKABOOK>
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Hi JJ,

I agree he's using it twice in sequence. However, the way I read the
SOAP/HTTP binding it very clearly states that the response message
of the SOAP MEP comes in the HTTP response. Are you saying that is
not the case?

In any case, I find it surprising that people will consider using
two SOAP MEPs the natural solution to this when the approach of a
single SOAP MEP bound differently to HTTP works just fine. That's
*precisely* the reason SOAP separated the protocol MEPs from how
they're bound to transport (or, ahem, transfer) protocols AFAIK!

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: Revised Asynch Binding


>
> Hi Sanjiva,
>
> The way I was reading Dave's proposal, he was not hijacking the current
> SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding, but using it twice "in sequence", to provide the
> 2-MEP equivalent. Maybe he meant something else? I don't want to put
> words in his mouth.
>
> JJ.
>
> Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>
> >>I am a bit uneasy about creating new (SOAP) bindings uncesserily. In
> >>certain circumstances, I agree with Sanjiva, this is unavoidable.
> >>However, for simpler cases, I like Dave's idea of essentially providing
> >>a "MEP scripting language". This helps reuse existing bindings when
> >>applicable.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >But at what price? I don't like the price of 2 SOAP-MEPs for one
> >WSDL MEP. Furthermore, Dave's doing at best a liberal reading of
> >SOAP1.2 and, at worst a full-scale violation of it to achieve the
> >2 SOAP-MEP thing using the current SOAP-HTTP binding.
> >
> >
Received on Monday, 12 July 2004 04:29:44 GMT

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