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

Re: Action item - Part 2: SOAP request-response, response, request-optional-response ...

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:58:57 -0500
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0601181558j33bb40c3p73dabfa2fa4f355c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
Cc: "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

On 1/18/06, Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com> wrote:
> > Indeed, I'd say that the intermediary is responsible
> > for ensuring that the 2nd hop binding can faithfully implment the MEP used
> > by the first hop.
> I'm inclined to agree with this, I just don't know how the intermediary
> knows the MEP.  Short of making SOAP (or at least non-default MEPs) depend
> on WSDL, then the messages themselves must be tagged, right?

I don't agree.  A SOAP/HTTP (as an example) node need only know the
"MEP" insofar as it knows the semantics of HTTP and therefore the
semantics of "request", "response", and their relationship on the

I think we sometimes forget that MEPs are simply tools to aid in the
construction of bindings.  Insofar as they've been used successfully
to define bindings, they're useful.  But they are not part of the
contract between nodes, nor should they be IMO, because any attempt to
make them so would certainly trump the semantics of any underlying
application protocol.

I believe the message should be king.

Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2006 23:59:03 UTC

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