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

Re: Jabber Binding Supports Request/Response - existence proof of shared MEPs

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:53:03 -0500
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@jabber.org>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFD9C710B9.1CF9AAC6-ON852570DF.00728B88-852570DF.0072B8FF@lotus.com>

Thanks Peter!  I almost sent you an explicit cc: on this, but didn't want 
to bother you with details of our day to day squabbling about MEPs.   Was 
going to ask your opinion shortly in any case, but hadn't realized you 
were on the list.  So much the better, thanks for weighing in.

Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@jabber.org>
12/22/2005 03:13 PM
        To:     noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
        cc:     xml-dist-app@w3.org
        Subject:        Re: Jabber Binding Supports Request/Response - 
existence proof of shared MEPs

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> In recent discussions, some people have asserted that one measure of 
> benefit of having MEPs in SOAP is whether we've seen more than one 
> that supports the same MEP.  I just checked and the draft Jabber binding 

> does, as I thought, support 
> http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/request-response/, the same 
> Request/Response pattern that's supported by our standard HTTP binding. 
> See [1].  Presumably, users will get the benefit of having a high degree 

> of similarity in the interfaces needed to support HTTP and Jabber. 

Yes, that seems like a good thing.

> Interestingly, this also suggests that we'll have to coordinate with the 

> Jabber folks if we make the response envelope optional, drop the 
> Request/Response MEP entirely, etc. as their draft specification clearly 

> depends on our MEP in its current form. 

The Jabber folks are here, so you don't have far to look. :-)

> Anyway, Jabber's use of our MEP reinforces my feelings that (a) MEPs as 
> have them in SOAP are a good thing and practical to reuse and (b) that 
> others have dependencies on these aspects of our Recommendation and we 
> should proceed with great caution in making any changes.

Agreed on both counts.


Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2005 20:54:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:28 UTC