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 13:25:29 -0800
Message-ID: <00b701c19ed4$555b80c0$32a2583f@val6000>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Cc: "XML dist app" <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
To: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Cc: "XML dist app" <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>; <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: One-way messaging in SOAP 1.2


> 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 12:41:08 GMT

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