W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2002

RE: Providing a short name for single-request-response MEP

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 20:08:20 -0400
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, "John Ibbotson" <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@uk.sun.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>, moreau@crf.canon.fr, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1C12DD8E.E59BBB8C-ON85256BA4.0001976A@lotus.com>
I can live with "request-response". 

Actually, one of the hidden assumptions in our use of this is that it is a 
reasonably rapid request/response.  If I'm placing an order and expecting 
a response in 3 months, this isnt' the one to use (or certainly the HTTP 
binding won't be happy.)  So, I'm a bit tempted to suggest something along 
the lines of "rapid-request-response", "request-with-immediate-response", 
or some such.  One day, we'll need a different pattern (or features to 
distinguish), long running from short running, IMO.    Again, I can live 
with "request-response".

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







"Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
04/22/2002 01:25 PM

 
        To:     "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, "Williams, Stuart" 
<skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
        cc:     <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, "John Ibbotson" <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>, 
<moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Martin Gudgin" <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>, 
"Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@uk.sun.com>, (bcc: Noah 
Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        RE: Providing a short name for single-request-response MEP



I think that's fine

Henrik 

>request-response would work for me.
>
>Williams, Stuart wrote:
>
>>>what's wrong with simple-request-response
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 20:26:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:09 GMT