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 22:44:07 -0400
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, chris.ferris@sun.com, henrikn@microsoft.com, john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com, marc.hadley@uk.sun.com, martin.gudgin@btconnect.com, moreau@crf.canon.fr, skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020423224407.Z20848@www.markbaker.ca>
On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 09:37:18PM -0400, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> The SOAP MEP makes very clear that the SOAP response is
> just that, the response to SOAP processing.  I believe
> that our HTTP binding only handles the case where the
> response is returned reasonably promptly, on the
> still-open connection. 

Promptness isn't the issue, it's "when is a response a response" 8-).

And actually, what the binding says is incorrect.


For a HTTP 202 response, it says;

"The Request Message has been received and processed. The entity body
of the HTTP response MAY contain a Response Message."

which is incorrect, because a 202 response indicates only that the
message has been accepted, not processed.  This means that the SOAP
processing model cannot be assumed to have kicked in, which breaks
the MEP in not nice ways.

At this point in time, I suggest that the easiest way out would
probably be to remove any mention of the 202 code.

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 22:50:42 UTC

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