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

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