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.

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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:19 UTC