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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:02 GMT