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

Re: One-way messaging in SOAP 1.2

From: Edwin Ortega <ortegae@wns.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:26:39 -0800
Message-ID: <00fa01c19ed4$8505f4e0$32a2583f@val6000>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
To: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: One-way messaging in SOAP 1.2


> 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 12:41:16 GMT

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