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

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

From: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:32:32 -0700
Message-ID: <40DAF410.8060905@oracle.com>
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>, "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "'Web Services Description'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>


Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

>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.
>  
>
So does WS-Message Delivery [1]. We are in favor of addressing this 
issue in a working group
which is chartered to focus on addressing.

--umit

[1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-ws-messagedelivery-20040426/

>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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Umit Yalcinalp                                  
Consulting Member of Technical Staff
ORACLE
Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          
Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 11:41:04 GMT

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