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

Re: Binding example discussion

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:57:02 -0700
To: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Cc: XML Distributed Applications List <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20010718095651.C23149@akamai.com>

On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 12:22:20PM +0100, Marc Hadley wrote:
> The candidate HTTP binding contains the following text:

Just to clarify, it isn't 'the' candidate.

> "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 ?

Well, this information certainly has to be somewhere; I don't know if
it should be in as 'low' a place as the binding definition, though.
There is a large amount of shared state between SOAP endpoints; the
basics should be reflected in the (relatively) unchanging
specifications; IMHO more application-specific things such as
communication-channel attributes need to be agreed upon by some other
mechanism (such as WSDL).

Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA)
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2001 12:57:04 UTC

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