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

RE: Issue LC50 - MEPs

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 00:15:20 +0100
Message-ID: <99CA63DD941EDC4EBA897048D9B0061D0E07DC5E@uspalx20a.pal.sap.corp>
To: "'Amelia A Lewis'" <alewis@tibco.com>, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org


>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Amelia A Lewis
>Sent: Friday, Nov 19, 2004 12:46 PM
>To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
>Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Issue LC50 - MEPs
>
>
>
<snip/>
>> Whether the respponse arrives by reading the reverse half of 
>a stream 
>> socket, or by reading a POP mailbox, or by opening an HTTP server
>> port and reading the POST to it, or by a carrier pigeon delivering
>> it, or by a UDP packet etc. is IRRELEVANT details to the client.
>
>I agree in principle, but so far as I know, there is no way of
>specifying multi-transport operations in WSDL as it currently stands. 
>Are you suggesting that WS-Addressing or WS-MD or some other mechanism
>is already able to define such operations?
>

You are right. Since we subject an operation to a specific binding, we are limiting the operation to a single transport mechanism in WSDL 2.0. 

In WS-MD, the callback "pattern" was invented out of two in-out or two input operations just to enable this capability to preserve the logical relationship between two message exchanges which may involve different bindings. 

>
>Amy!
>-- 
>Amelia A. Lewis
>Senior Architect
>TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
>alewis@tibco.com
>

--umit
Received on Friday, 19 November 2004 23:16:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:33 GMT