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

Re: Response envelope optional vs. response optional

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:50:19 -0500
To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Cc: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF8FAB68B5.3E9FCDEA-ON852570DF.00044F4A-852570DF.00049BC4@lotus.com>

David Hull writes:

> The "cheese sandwich with no bread" issue is slightly 
> different.  I don't like the idea of defining a generic 
> "request optional-response" MEP and binding it to a one-way 
> transport, where we know there will never be a response.

I agree completely!  It's the application receiving the request that 
decides whether there will be a response.  Let's assume you send a request 
through the DHOneWayTransportBinding and the application does generate a 
response.  The binding can't do what it's required to do, which is deliver 
the response.  The response envelope is optional only in the sense that 
the application may say "I'm not sending one".  If the application tries, 
the binding must deliver.

Of course, there may be rare cases where you have a very special purpose 
implementation (e.g. an embedded system running only one application) and 
you know that the app. will never send a response.  In that case, I'd say 
you don't have to write the code in the binding that you know will never 
be called.  Otherwise, the binding must be capable of sending a response 
envelope; the app will decide whether to send one.  Right?

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2005 00:50:26 GMT

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