W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2006

Deconstructing MEPs

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 14:34:55 -0700
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E8032BED41@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
There has been a practice of modeling essentially request-response
interactions (especially in the absence of WS-Addressing) as two one-way
messages.  IIRC, we recommend this strategy when the request and
response are over two different transports.

 

However, there seems to be a missing piece.  If I have an in-out MEP, I
should be able to deconstruct it into it's component parts fairly
easily.

 

"in" of "in-out" -> "in-only"

"out" of "in-out" -> "out-only", only, "in-out" uses the fault
propagation rulset "fault replaces message" and "out-only" uses "no
faults".

 

This shows our primitive in-only and out-only MEPs might not be adequate
to decompose our multi-message MEPs.  Do we want to enable such a
scenario?  If so, do we need a "fault-only" with "no-faults" MEP?  Or do
we need "out-only" with a "fault-replaces message" MEP?

 

 

 [  Jonathan Marsh  ][  jmarsh@microsoft.com
<mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com>   ][  http://auburnmarshes.spaces.msn.com
]

 
Received on Monday, 3 July 2006 21:35:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:41 GMT