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

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

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:33:07 -0500
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Patrick R. McManus" <mcmanus@datapower.com>, "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF4047EE3C.381820C6-ON85257103.00083CE5-85257103.000885F7@lotus.com>

David Orchard writes:

> More to the point, I don't see why we'd need an request-optional-
> soap-response mep AND a f-a-f mep where f-a-f is interpreted as you 
> suggested on the server. 

...because when we implement SOAP on true FAF transports like UDP, and 
maybe some flavors of Jabber (I have to go back and look at that) we'll 
want the true FAF MEP and probably not the Req/Resp (I.e. because 
Req/Resp, as we keep reminding ourselves, requires the transport to know 
how to address responses, which in general UDP does not provide.)  FAF is 
the natural MEP and should be used on one-way transports;  Req/Resp and/or 
Response-only (which is more properly named 
Request/ResponseWithEnvelopeInResponseOnly) are the natural MEPs and 
should be used on Request/Response protocols like HTTP.

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 27 January 2006 01:33:22 GMT

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