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

Re: One-way messaging in SOAP 1.2

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:02:55 +0100 (CET)
To: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
cc: XML dist app <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201161257530.22689-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Marc,
 as far as I understand the HTTP binding (I've last read the 
SOAP/1.1 version of it though) is that it supports one-way quite 
nicely:
 An HTTP request with the SOAP Envelope in it goes there, back 
goes either 202 success, but nothing back, or 200 OK with content 
length zero. (IIRC the wording meant "in case there is a reply, 
send it like this:...")
 If the current wording prohibits one-way, I think we've indeed 
got an issue here.
 I don't think we necessarily have to describe one-way MEP for it 
should be clear enough. Or we could have a simple definition 
like:
 One-way MEP: best effort to get the message to the other side, 
nothing (SOAPish) ever goes back.
 I don't like the idea that some transports may not support 
one-way, I can't imagine such a transport really.
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Marc Hadley wrote:

 > All,
 > 
 > I'd like to raise a new issue:
 > 
 > In Part 1, section 5.3 we find:
 > 
 > "Every binding specification MUST support the transmission and 
 > processing of one-way messages as described in this specification. A 
 > binding specification MAY state that it supports additional features, in 
 > which case the binding specification MUST provide for maintaining state, 
 > performing processing, and transmitting information in a manner 
 > consistent with the specification for those features."
 > 
 > This paragraph is potentially confusing, either we mean:
 > 
 > (i) All bindings must support a one-way MEP, in which case there are two 
 > issues:
 >    (a) we currently don't define a one way MEP in the specification
 >    (b) the HTTP binding we do define doesn't support a one-way MEP
 > 
 > or (my reading)
 > 
 > (ii) All bindings must at a minimum define how to move a message from 
 > one node to another, in which case I would propose that we add a 
 > clarification along the lines of "Note, this does not mean that all 
 > bindings must support a one way MEP, only that they MUST define how to 
 > move a message from one SOAP node to another".
 > 
 > Comments ?
 > 
 > Regards,
 > Marc.
 > 
 > 
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 07:02:58 GMT

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