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 15:46:47 +0100 (CET)
To: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201161545120.22689-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Marc,
 I think that now I see what you mean and it seems to me that 
some formal description of the one-way MEP could be useful and 
that we would _not_ require all bindings to support one-way 
messaging.
 On the other hand, I think it would not be wise to not support 
one-way in our (as of now) only binding. 8-)

                   Jacek Kopecky

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



On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Marc Hadley wrote:

 > 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.
 > 
 > Regards,
 > Marc.
 > 
 > 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.
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 09:46:49 GMT

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