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

Re: Rewrite of SOAP 1.2 Adjuncts

From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 23:40:30 -0500
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
Cc: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-id: <43C1E93E.6050402@tibco.com>

Rich Salz wrote:

>> As far as I can tell, what we have, or at least what we want to have
>> if we take this approach is SOAP-independent request-response.  That
>> is, something always goes out, something /always/ comes back, but
>> neither message need be a SOAP envelope.  The optionality is in the
>> SOAPiness, not in the existence of a response.
> That rules out true fire and forget, such as SOAP over UDP, right?

That's a different MEP.  If your transport gives you request-response
natively, you use "request-response with optional SOAPiness".  If it
gives you true fire and forget, you use "fire-and-forget one-way" (TBD).

>     /r$
Received on Monday, 9 January 2006 04:41:57 UTC

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