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

RE: One-way messaging in SOAP 1.2

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:37:25 -0500
To: skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC765EF4D.9F158722-ON85256B53.00122911@lotus.com>
Stuart Williams says: 

>> 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.

I'm not encouraging such runtime negotiation of MEP's, and I would expect 
it to be rare, I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed.  I think our 
design already provides for it, and disallowing it would be artificial. 

I think it's absolutely crucial to realize that, while the envelopes will 
flow "downstream" from hop to hop, that the bindings will be sending 
traffic bi-directionally, possibly in fragmented forms etc.  The most 
obvious examples of such traffic are low level acknowledgements, flow 
control window updates, etc.  Since bindings are allowed to engage in that 
bi-directional "chatter" for a variety of purposes, why not to establish 
the MEP?   Unusual, but perfectly reasonable if that's how the binding 
happens to be spec'd.

In short, I think that putting an assymetric responsibility on the 
receiver is artificial.  The design is already set to give the appropriate 
flexibility in establishing MEPs, and if a binding specification wants to 
call for low level "negotiation" at run time, I see no reason to prohibit 
that.

------------------------------------------------------------------
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 22:51:49 GMT

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