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: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:56:56 -0400
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020423105656.W20848@www.markbaker.ca>
Hi Stuart,

On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 12:59:45PM +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Nevertheless, there is a causal relationship between request message and
> response message. It may not be the last-word on whatever processing is
> motivated by the receipt of the request message, and further interactions
> may be necessary to 'figure' that out, but that's off in the space of
> whatever teh SOAP application is.

Definitely.  I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

> I think an interesting question is whether a response signifies that the
> processing described in part 1 section 2 has been (is being) carried out -
> even if a consequence of that processing is some deferred opration that may
> take some time to complete.

Right, that's what I was trying to say.

As I just said in my other message, I think it would be good to state
up front in the processing model that "process" doesn't necessarily mean
the same thing as it does for the underlying protocol.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 13:56:03 GMT

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