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

Re: One-way messaging in SOAP 1.2

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:24:39 -0500
Message-ID: <3C56BEB7.4030706@sun.com>
To: "S. Alexander Jacobson" <alex@vo.com>
CC: xml-dist-app <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Let me be explicitly clear then. What I meant
by (say a Servlet or CGI) was not meant to infer
the Servlet or CGI implementation layer, but
an *instance* of a Servlet or CGI that in effect
*is* the implementation of the binding.

Thus, neither the Servlet nor CGI *implementation*
need understand the semantics inferred, just the
layer which binds the protocol (HTTP) to the SOAP
node.

Cheers,

Chris

S. Alexander Jacobson wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Christopher Ferris wrote:
> 
>>However, if it is the responsibility of
>>the layer above the HTTP processing (say a servlet or CGI)
>>that is effectively the implementation of the HTTP binding,
>>that is responsible for interpretation of the new header,
>>and responsible for returning an HTTP 204 No Content response
>>to the sender. That (IMO) would be perfectly acceptable.
>>
> 
> To be HTTP correct, the CGI/Servlet implementation
> would need to know enough about the semantics of
> the underlying operation to know whether to send
> a "202 Accepted" or a "204 No Content" response.
> 
> I think the choices are:
> 1. have the envelope give a hint to the recipient
> 2. have SOAP methods only return one or the other
> 	(the response for certain SOAP methods is
> 	preset when the user installs them in the
> 	CGI implementaiton)
> 3. give the SOAP methods excessive awareness of
>    HTTP.
> 4. only return 204 if the response times out and
> it is clearly an asynch response (ugly!)
> 5....?
> 
> None of these seem particularly elegant, but I
> would choose #2.
> 
> -Alex-
> ___________________________________________________________________
> S. Alexander Jacobson                   i2x Media
> 1-212-787-1914 voice                    1-603-288-1280 fax
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 10:26:02 GMT

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