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: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:48:29 +0600
Message-ID: <056901c45acb$dfc30f20$e7794109@LANKABOOK>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Jeff Mischkinsky" <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.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>

He used the wrong word ... he meant "wrong" example ;-).

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Orchard" <dorchard@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>
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 9:37 PM
Subject: RE: Issue 130: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed


> 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 11:53:57 GMT

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