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: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:30:14 +0600
Message-ID: <070701c4598a$ce69b6d0$9f484109@LANKABOOK>
To: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>, "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "'Web Services Description'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Same here; there is nothing called an "asynch" pattern IMO. As
you Jonathan noted nothing precludes one from doing In-Out with
asynch stuff .. in fact the use of WS-Addressing ReplyTo, for
example, already allows that.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>
To: "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>; "'Web Services Description'"
<www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 2:20 AM
Subject: RE: Issue 130: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed


>
>
> My vote was to NOT add anything to WSDL 2.0.
>
>
> --
> Tom Jordahl
> Macromedia Server Development
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 3:00 PM
> To: Sanjiva Weerawarana; Tom Jordahl; David Orchard; Web Services
> Description
> Subject: RE: Issue 130: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed
>
> Let me make sure I understand your +1, and Tom's.  Do you agree that we
> should add an async pattern, though note that it requires an extension
> to provide addressing information, or that since we can't provide such
> an addressing mechanism we should not do the pattern at all?
>
> A further question on how this would impact the spec: As I understand it
> the In-Out pattern has nothing that precludes async.  I don't think our
> SOAP/HTTP binding itself prohibits this either.  So are we talking about
> a new SOAP MEP, a peer of the SOAP Request-Response Message Exchange
> Pattern [1] and it's binding to HTTP [2]?  If so that doesn't seem like
> a trivial task, nor one that could or should not be defined outside the
> 3-part WSDL spec.
>
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#singlereqrespmep
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#soapinhttp
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 8:53 AM
> > To: Tom Jordahl; 'David Orchard'; 'Web Services Description'
> > Subject: Re: Issue 130: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed
> >
> >
> > +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 21:30:59 GMT

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