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

Re: Response envelope optional vs. response optional

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 08:31:43 -0500
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0601040531r3ce54e10qd76a5d89ec18fa3d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org

Anish,

On 1/4/06, Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> wrote:
> What I was pushing back on was allowing a 202 (with no entity body) in
> HTTP, and still saying that it implements a SOAP req-res MEP (since
> there is no SOAP response envelope coming back). It can be called SOAP
> req-optional-response or a SOAP-request MEP, but calling it a SOAP
> req-res MEP doesn't seem right.

It is certainly a different "view of the world" than has been used up
'til now, which probably explains why it "doesn't seem right", but do
you have any concrete issues with it?

IMO, this is the only view of the relationship of MEPs and protocol
bindings which is consistent with not just the architecture of the
Web, but the architecture of the Internet as a whole, as it treats
application protocols as application protocols (e.g.. application
protocol responses as application layer responses), not transport
protocols.  I've also been promoting this view since the early days of
XMLP, so hopefully it's not entirely unfamililar. 8-)

Mark.
--
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com
Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2006 13:32:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:21 GMT