W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2002

Re: TBTF: SOAP MEP vs TMEP

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 11:36:23 -0500
Message-ID: <3C5EB887.5000405@sun.com>
To: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
CC: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'Noah Mendelsohn'" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, XML Protocol Discussion <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
+1, but I get a sense that this is also what Noah was
suggesting, no?

Cheers,

Chris

Marc Hadley wrote:

> Williams, Stuart wrote:
> 
>>
>> I think we do have a coherent picture, but I think that the term
>> Transport-MEP has been conjouring up a different image for you than it 
>> has
>> at least for me... which is indicative of it perhaps not being the right
>> term. I think that I am now happy to think in terms, solely of SOAP MEPs
>> where the MEP description details:
>>
>> - The operation of the MEP in terms of an exchange of SOAP messages   
>> (cf. the requester/responder FSMs in the current draft)
>>        
>> - How the MEP is relayed across intermediaries.
>>   (Currently just narrative in the current draft)
>>
>> - The disposition of faults generated during the operation of the MEP.
>>   (This is covered for SRR in the current draft... but the detail is
>>    open to discussion particularly faults due to the response message).
>>
>> A binding description then has to 'fit' the usage of the underlying 
>> protocol
>> into the FSMs that describe operations of the MEP. However, the binding
>> description is fundementally single-hop... the required *relaying* 
>> behaviour
>> is decribed in the MEP and feature specifications and not the binding
>> specifications.
>>
> 
> This pretty much describes my view too. In particular the last sentence 
> above summarises nicely the view I was trying to convey in my initial post.
> 
> Marc.
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 11:37:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT