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

RE: One-way messaging in SOAP 1.2

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:19:39 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F19291C@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com'" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hi Noah,

Personnally I think that your original proposal was about right - I think
its much more direct and less susceptible to subtle interpretation.

[Aside - I find subtle wording in specs. a little disturbing, and if present
should be signalled with big warning signs]

What I dislike about the suggested revision is that it hints at the choice
of MEP being the subject of a run-time negotiation amongst the participants
in a message exchange.

In more protracted exchange patterns (that might involve arbitrary numbers
of messages being sent and received) there is presumably some sense of an
active participant that starts the exchange and passive particpant(s) that
are in some sense reactive. Sender and receiver then get a bit blurry. The
important thing is that all participants in the exchange come to know what
pattern is in operation and that needs to be established around the
initiation of the exchange. Clearly, the initiator knows what pattern it's
trying to use and other the participants need to know inorder to correctly
handle the initial message.

I don't think that the focus on message recipient is wrong. Generally, its
the receiver of a message that has to be able to figure out what's going
on... this may be on a message by message basis or it might be on a per
message exchange basis (established during the initiaton of the exchange).

Any just my 2p's worth.

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: 30 January 2002 20:27
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: One-way messaging in SOAP 1.2
> 
> 
> 
> I had originally proposed:
> 
> * In the binding framework, state that:  "Binding specifications that
> support more than one MEP MUST specify the means by which the recipient of
> a message can determine the MEP being used.
> 
> I wonder whether it would have been better to suggest:
> 
> * In the binding framework, state that:  "Binding specifications that
> support more than one MEP MUST specify the means by which the send and
> receiver of a message can agree on the MEP being used.
> 
> The focus on the receiver was inadvertent.  Does this revision deal with
> the concern regarding HTTP?
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2002 04:20:14 GMT

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