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

RE: The deep difference between request/response and fire-and-forget

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:17:31 -0800
Message-ID: <E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9C7CA36F@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "David Hull" <dmh@tibco.com>
Cc: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Well, good luck getting a charter passed for specifying a MEP that can't
be supported by HTTP and would only be used by a single protocol that is
at the IETF and that the IETF group has never said to us that they need.

 

Dave

 

________________________________

From: David Hull [mailto:dmh@tibco.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:29 PM
To: David Orchard
Cc: Rich Salz; xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: Re: The deep difference between request/response and
fire-and-forget

 





I'm strongly against standardizing any MEP that can't be deployed on
HTTP.  That would be very very strange to standardize an MEP and not
standardize any bindings for that MEP.  It doesn't pass the giggle test
at all..
  

That doesn't pass my giggle test.  Do what now?  HTTP is the only
protocol in the world?  Standardize a one-way MEP, bind it to XMPP
<message/> and I promise I won't giggle a bit.
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2006 23:18:32 GMT

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