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 11:34:37 -0700
To: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@Sun.COM>, XML Distributed Applications List <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20010718113424.B24218@akamai.com>

On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 02:25:22PM -0400, christopher ferris wrote:
> > 
> > If we say that both ends must infer correlation (which I think is
> > what Mark's saying), then that's ok, right?
> That would suit me, but I don't think that's what Mark N was saying. The
> use of the term "may" in Mark N's description of correlation is quite
> incompatible with your "must".

If implicit correlation is used, there must be some mechanism to do
so at both ends. There may be uses of the HTTP binding where both
ends agree not to use implicit correlation.

Agree, disagree?

> I could conceive of use of the 202 Accepted status response for
> one-way message exchanges, to infer that the message has been
> received, but not processed and a 204 No Content status response as
> meaning received AND processed.

Agreed. I currently am inclined against setting these uses in stone
by including them in the binding.

Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA)
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2001 14:34:40 UTC

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