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: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:08:53 -0500
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
Cc: "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-id: <43C3F835.6000009@tibco.com>
Rich Salz wrote:

>>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).
>>    
>>
>
>Thanks for the clarification.
>
>Do you htink it's legitimate for parts of the SOAP stack to turn a "no
>SOAP response" from the transport/transfer layer, into an empty soap
>message?
>  
>
I've proposed it (it's "DH1" on the table I sent a while ago), but I'm
no longer so sure it's the best way to go.

>	/r$
>  
>
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2006 18:09:34 GMT

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