W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2006

RE: Draft Simplified SOAP One-way MEP

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:37:20 -0700
Message-ID: <E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9C01783ACC@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>


I'm fine with having material similar to that in the "simplified" mep.
It roughly says "send a message" and "receive a message", which is about
the extent that I think the formalism of the MEP needs to get into.  


> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 2:58 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Draft Simplified SOAP One-way MEP
> I finally got to take a look at these.  I'm afraid they're a bit too
> simple for my taste.  In particular, I can't quite convince myself
> they normatively require anyone to send anything, though certainly a
> sympathetic reader would get the idea.  At the very least, I would
> the instructions in prose, e.g.:
> -------------
> The scope of a one-way MEP is limited to the exchange of a message
> one sending and one receiving SOAP node.  The sending node MUST send
> SOAP Message provided in
> http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/OutboundMessage to the node
> as http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/ImmediateDestination.  The
sender is
> not responsible for reliably detecting whether transmission succeeds
> fails, but the sender SHOULD fault in a binding specific manner if it
> descovers that transmission is in fact unsuccessful.
> The receiving node MUST determine whether a given message has been
> received successfully, and if so, MUST process the received message in
> http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/InboundMessage according to the
> SOAP processing model).  Determination of success by the receiver MAY
> conservative, I.e. the receiver may in exceptional circumstances treat
> erroneous or lost  a message which is received intact (typical reasons
> making such decisions might include shortage of buffer space, network
> interface overruns, etc.).  Receivers MAY fault in a binding-specific
> manner if some particular message is declared in error (note, however,
> that in many cases where receipt is unsuccessful, information
> the message or its sender may be unreliable, in which case there may
> little if any value in reflecting a message-specific fault.)
> -------------
> I'm not sure the above is quite right, but it makes clear I think that
> even when there are no state machines, it's important to cover the
> and the edge cases.
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
> "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
> Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> 03/30/06 08:04 PM
>         To:     <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>         cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
>         Subject:        Draft Simplified SOAP One-way MEP
> I attach an HTML and xmlspec version of the SOAP One-way MEP done in
> simplified state transition-less style.  I like this much better than
> "complex" style, done at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Mar/0044.html
> Cheers,
> Dave
> [attachment "entitiesedcopy.dtd" deleted by Noah
> [attachment "one-way-mep-simple.html" deleted by Noah
> Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM]
> [attachment "one-way-mep-simple.xml" deleted by Noah
> Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM]
Received on Thursday, 27 April 2006 18:38:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:29 UTC