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

Why protocol MEPs are good for you

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 01:22:59 -0800
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF14A04613@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I believe that a "protocol level" MEP as described in [1] is a good
thing because it enables: 


1) bindings to be written without knowledge of wsdl, policy, etc.  I
show a SOAP 1.1 one-way binding at [2] and a SOAP 1.2 request/response +
one way binding at [1] and 


2) description languages to talk about messages without talking about
underlying protocols.  The WSDL 2.0 ed copy spec has a section that
shows how WSDL uses the SOAP 1.2 request-response MEP [3].  I have
offered a defunct proposal for how the WS-A UsingAddressing Async
Extension could be written to use the protocol mep or the soap meps[4]
in section 3.1.1.  Some worthy text from [4] that shows either the
protocol mep or soap mep to highlight.


When wsaw:Async attribute has this value, then the
response message MAY be the response part (aka
http://www.w3.org/2004/12/ws-addr/mep/ResponseMessage or
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/InboundMessage) of a
request-optional-response or request-response MEP or the response
message MAY be the request part (aka
http://www.w3.org/2004/12/ws-addr/mep/RequestMessage or
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/OutboundMessage) of a separate

request-optional response or request MEP.


Without an MEP, you have to write WSDL and WSDL extensions like WS-A to
be protocol specific, such as [5] first attachment section 3.1.2












Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2005 09:23:16 UTC

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