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

RE: Revised Asynch Binding

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:03:14 -0700
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF08C9B81C@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

That's right.  twice in sequence.  

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Jean-Jacques Moreau
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 12:24 AM
> To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> 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 12:03:26 GMT

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