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

Re: issue 78

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 07:25:15 -0400
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: Frank DeRose <frankd@tibco.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFCA9926E6.CB40B314-ON85256A6C.003ED0C2@raleigh.ibm.com >
Very true.
-Dug

"Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr> on 06/15/2001 07:23:45 AM

To:   Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   Frank DeRose <frankd@tibco.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject:  Re: issue 78



Dug, I agree, but this is not RPC specific, isn't it?

Doug Davis wrote:

> [...]  I believe it is
> valid to put multiple RPC calls in the body (each one being
> its own body element) - if fact you can even put each RPC
> as a separate header - there are lots of ways to do it.
> But, the spec doesn't tell you how to handle things like
> faults (or multiple faults) or rollback if the 3rd rpc
> fails.  So, if someone wants to do this it would be up
> to them to decide how these issues are handled - as long
> as they conform to the spec.

Jean-Jacques.
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 07:25:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:01 GMT