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

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

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 22:18:48 -0400
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, 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: <20020422221848.U20848@www.markbaker.ca>
Noah,

On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 08:08:20PM -0400, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 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".

Well, HTTP won't have a problem with a 3-month duration transaction
if the service uses the 202 (Accepted) response code.

And that brings up an issue with the "request-response" name; when using
the default binding, the response can actually be a response to the
"acceptance" of the message.  I don't think that means we need a new
name, but I do think that we should point out that a "response" isn't
always the result of processing.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 22:25:22 GMT

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