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

Re: Binding example discussion

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:52:12 -0400
Message-Id: <200107181752.NAA13275@mail3.magma.ca>
To: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
CC: XML Distributed Applications List <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Hi Marc,

7/18/2001 7:22:20 AM, Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> 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.

If we say that both ends must infer correlation (which I think is what Mark's saying), then that's ok, right?

> 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 ?

I believe that correlation of request with response is one of the "features" that you get when you use HTTP.  I don't 
believe a SOAP/HTTP binding should do anything to change that.

There is one issue on this topic that may require some work on our part though; supporting an HTTP 203 (Accepted) 
response code.  Should a SOAP message be POSTed over HTTP and the server responds with a 203, the
correlation between request and response has now been broken.  Do we want/need to say anything about how an 
application can determine correlation when the response is returned through some other means?  At a minimum I think 
we should say that other mechanisms can be used on top of SOAP (say, a transaction header block), but that the 
HTTP binding does not define such a mechanism.

>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.

Requiring request/response correlation over HTTP would simplify this dramatically.

Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2001 13:52:13 UTC

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