W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > July 2001

Re: Binding example discussion

From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:36:39 -0400
Message-ID: <3B5590E7.56E845CE@east.Sun.COM>
To: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@Sun.COM>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>, XML Distributed Applications List <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

I think that the binding should be explicit as to the
correlation. If there is no correlation between a request and response
SOAP envelope carried over a single HTTP exchange, then that 
would/should be described in a separate binding.



Marc Hadley wrote:
> Mark Nottingham wrote:
> >
> > There has been some discussion amongst the binding TF regarding
> > example bindings, to help us discover requirements for defining a
> > binding. As part of this, I generated a candiate for a HTTP binding
> > definition.
> >
> The candidate HTTP binding contains the following text:
> "correlation - HTTP provides implicit corellation between its request
> and response messages; SOAP applications may choose to infer corellation
> between the SOAP envelope transfered by the HTTP request and the SOAP
> envelope returned with the associated HTTP response."
> I'm not sure that this is really rigorous enough to allow interop. What
> if the SOAP receiver (HTTP server) decides not to infer correlation and
> the SOAP sender (HTTP client) decides to infer correlation. Unless we
> have a means to allow the client and server to agree on on whether the
> response is correlated to the request then we have to specify it one way
> or the other - no ?
> This comes back to the need in a binding for an unambiguous
> specification of connection/channel/endpoint usage/management that I
> called for in the recent binding TF con call.
> Cheers,
> Marc.
> --
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
> Tel: +44 1252 423740
> Int: x23740
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2001 09:36:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:14 UTC