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

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

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:55:31 +0100
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, "Patrick R. McManus" <mcmanus@datapower.com>, Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-id: <43DF2603.6060104@crf.canon.fr>

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

>It's an interesting question whether one should bother naming two one way MEPs that differ only in the likelihood of delivery in the face of short-term network trouble. My inclination would be to define at most one FAF MEP and leave it as a quality of service of the binding what the likelyhood of delivery would be.
>
Or are you implicitly calling for a "qos" property on the MEP (assuming 
there's an API to find a transport based on a MEP property and there's 
an application/middleware with a little bit of intelligence and not all 
hardwired in WSDL, all such things having a faint probability to occur 
in practice)?

JJ.
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2006 08:56:04 GMT

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