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

Re: Issue 130: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:53:19 +0600
Message-ID: <05a601c4593a$365e9540$9f484109@LANKABOOK>
To: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>, "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>, "'Web Services Description'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

+1 .. with sadness, but not for the lack of extra work.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>
To: "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>; "'Web Services Description'"
<www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 9:26 PM
Subject: RE: Issue 130: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed


>
>
> I think this ties in with my old quest to get the output and output/input
> MEPs removed from the spec OR specified in a way that we can have
> interoperable implementations.
>
> Supporting Async request/response requires the first service (or
operation)
> to receive the address on where to send the response.  We can either
specify
> this as a part of WSDL 2.0 and everyone will implement it the same way
(and
> interoperate).  Or we can say nothing, and if you want to do it, you will
> have to implement something (WS-Addressing?) that not everyone may have.
>
> It makes me sad to say that at this point, saying nothing seems to be the
> way to go.
>
> --
> Tom Jordahl
> Macromedia Server Development
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of David Orchard
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 1:33 PM
> To: Web Services Description
> Subject: RE: Issue 130: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed
>
>
> Without tracking down the reference, I think that I posted a response that
> said something like I don't think that any asynch binding requires the
> engagement of an addressing/delivery mechanism.  I'm reminded of our
> "operation name" discussions on this.  If we don't require the description
> of the operation name uniqueness mechanism in the WSDL, then I don't think
> that we need to spec the callback mechanism is WSDL.  Certainly something
> will have to be there, but that can be done in some other means.  Simply
> that there is an expectation of one is sufficient.  If a service provider
> does not describe their callback mechanism in some out-of-band, extension,
> or f&p form, then it will be a pretty useless service.  Same way if a
> service provider can't distinguish between operations on it's end it's
> fairly useless.
>
> Caveat Servico Providemptor?
>
> Dave
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 8:09 AM
> > To: Web Services Description
> > Subject: Issue 130: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed
> >
> >
> >
> > [Reviving this thread for the telcon this week.]
> >
> > Sanjiva's mail below lays out the proposal on the table, and
> > the primary
> > issue with it - that it requires the use of an addressing mechanism,
> > presumably an extension engaged in the WSDL and marked required.  Have
> > we learned anything new since January?
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> > On
> > > Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> > > Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 4:46 PM
> > > To: Martin Gudgin; Philippe Le Hegaret; David Orchard
> > > Cc: Web Services Description
> > > Subject: Re: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed
> > >
> > >
> > > "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> writes:
> > > > PAOS is slightly different. It has two MEPs, the one I
> > think you are
> > > > thinking of works as follows:
> > > >
> > > > Given nodes A and B:
> > > >
> > > > 1. node A makes an HTTP GET to node B.
> > > > 2. Node B sends a SOAP Request as the HTTP response.
> > > > 3. Node A responds with a SOAP response in an HTTP POST to Node B.
> > > > 4. Node B responds with some HTTP response ( typically a
> > web page )
> > > >
> > > > Gudge
> > >
> > > I understood what DaveO wanted as:
> > >
> > > 1. node A makes an HTTP POST to node B with a SOAP Request and
> > >    information on where to POST the HTTP response to
> > > 2. node B responds with something like 201 OK
> > > 3. later on, node B makes an HTTP POST to node A with a
> > SOAP Response
> > > 4. node A responds with something like 201 OK
> > >
> > > DaveO??
> > >
> > > I like this a lot but unfortunately one needs WS-Addressing or
> > something
> > > similar to send the "information on where to POST the HTTP response
> > to".
> > >
> > > Sanjiva.
> > >
> >
> >
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 11:53:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:31 GMT