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 22:21:29 +0600
Message-ID: <010501c45a07$51cb85e0$e7794109@LANKABOOK>
To: "Umit Yalcinalp" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Cc: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>, "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "'Web Services Description'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I guess you didn't notice the careful use of "for example" in my note ;-).

Ah the fun of standards politics ...

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Umit Yalcinalp
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
Cc: Tom Jordahl ; 'Jonathan Marsh' ; 'Web Services Description'
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: Issue 130: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed




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 12:26:47 GMT

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