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

Re: One-way messaging in SOAP 1.2

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:33:32 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <3C458E7A.2070606@sun.com>
To: John Ibbotson <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>
CC: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
My issue is not so much whether "the SOAP spec supports one-way 
messages", but whether we are in fact mandating support in every binding 
for a one way MEP that we don't formally define.

I agree that the HTTP binding can be used to support a one-way MEP, I 
just don't think that we define this very well in the current text. E.g. 
section 8.3 states that it supports single request-response, nothing 
more; the detail about HTTP response codes 202 and 204 is in "8.4.1 
Single Request-Response Exchanges".

In general, I don't think the layering is as clear as it might be - 
probably because the only instance we have at the moment is a request 
response MEP over a request response transport.


John Ibbotson wrote:

> This issue is an example of how things get blurred at different levels in a
> stack, We are considering the contents of a SOAP Envelope, not the
> transport that moves the message from one point to another. As Jack
> suggests, a SOAP message can be sent as the contents of an HTTP request, At
> the transport layer, a 200 response comes back with empty content. Tha
> response is simply an artifact of the HTTP protocol design. If I use an
> asynchronous transport (I know some folks may not view it as a transport)
> such as MQSeries, then I simply PUT a message to a queue and it gets
> delivered. to the destination. There is no request/response visible at the
> application layer.
> I am happy that the SOAP spec supports one-way messages in that there is no
> mandatory response at the SOAP layer from the ultimate destination. If you
> think some clarification of this is needed then I support that. This
> clarification must emphasise the SOAP layer and not complicate it by
> transport artifacts.
> John
> XML Technology and Messaging,
> IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park,
> Winchester, SO21 2JN
> Tel: (work) +44 (0)1962 815188        (home) +44 (0)1722 781271
> Fax: +44 (0)1962 816898
> Notes Id: John Ibbotson/UK/IBM
> email: john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com
>                     Marc Hadley                                                                                     
>                     <marc.hadley@sun.       To:     XML dist app <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>                             
>                     com>                    cc:                                                                     
>                     Sent by:                Subject:     One-way messaging in SOAP 1.2                              
>                     xml-dist-app-requ                                                                               
>                     est@w3.org                                                                                      
>                     01/16/2002 11:18                                                                                
>                     AM                                                                                              
> 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.

Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 09:37:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:18 UTC