W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2005

Re: Response envelope optional vs. response optional

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:13:39 -0500
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0512211013w5645c01k1eb26e2622975794@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org

Anish,

On 12/21/05, Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> wrote:
> My understanding about SOAP MEP is that: it talks about SOAP messages. A
> SOAP req-res MEP consists of one SOAP req and one SOAP res. In the case
> of 202/204, there is no SOAP response although there is HTTP response.

An HTTP response is a SOAP response.

> Hence my discomfort about the name (SOAP req-res MEP with no SOAP res).
> Alternately, specifying how the SOAP response is sent over a different
> HTTP connection is not going into higher-level messaging pattern. It
> would be merely specifying how the response part of the req-res SOAP MEP
> is sent (I'm not sure if this is the best way to go, but I don't think
> it is going into higher-level MEPs).

I'd suggest that any other "response" would be handled as part of a
separate message exchange.

Mark.
--
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com
Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2005 18:21:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:20 GMT