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

Re: Optional SOAP response; the transfer binding view

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 09:51:14 -0800
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0601110951tc1037b6o96bb24ffeb833fdf@mail.gmail.com>
To: "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org

Ok, nice; I guess I should have looked at your proposal before sending
that. 8-)  I had only looked at DaveO's proposal.

I have one comment, and some editorial patches for your proposal which
I'll send in a separate message.

Mark.

On 1/11/06, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> I think the redraft I posted at [1] is consistent with the assumptions and
> conclusions in your note.  Specifically, the inboundMessage and
> outputBoundMessage properties continue to consistent of the entire SOAP
> level message, including things like the WebMethod when appropriate.  All
> that's changed is that (a) the request/response MEP makes clear that the
> response messages for that MEP need not contain a SOAP envelope and (b)
> the HTTP binding makes clear that the correct embodiment of an otherwise
> successful "no envelope" response is an status code of 202.
>
> Noah
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Jan/0050.html
>
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>


--
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 17:51:19 GMT

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