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

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.