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

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

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:37:29 -0700
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF08864115@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Jeff Mischkinsky" <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "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>

why is it a bad example?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Jeff Mischkinsky
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 9:14 PM
> To: Sanjiva Weerawarana; Umit Yalcinalp
> Cc: Tom Jordahl; 'Jonathan Marsh'; 'Web Services Description'
> Subject: Re: Issue 130: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed
> 
> 
> 
> At 09:21 AM 6/24/2004, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> 
> >I guess you didn't notice the careful use of "for example" 
> in my note ;-).
> 
> I noticed. Bad example :-)
>    jeff
> 
> 
> >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
> 
> Jeff Mischkinsky                      jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
> Consulting Member Technical Staff     +1(650)506-1975
> Director, Web Services Standards      500 Oracle Parkway M/S 4OP9
> Oracle Corporation                    Redwood Shores, CA 94065
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 25 June 2004 11:42:26 GMT

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