- 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
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. http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/04/11/soap12-part2-1.55.html#http-reqbindwaitstate 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. 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 22:50:42 UTC