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

Re: Signaling MEPs

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:00:29 -0500
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0603151000j7d72cf58j49e38b0a8aadb5bb@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@sun.com>
Cc: "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Marc,

On 3/15/06, Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@sun.com> wrote:
> I took an action at the F2F to start a discussion on signaling MEPs
> in SOAP. Currently the SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding supports two MEPs and
> the determination of which is in use can be made by looking at the
> web method property: GET=Response MEP, POST=Request-Response MEP.
> Adding new MEPs to the mix might require a different method to signal
> the MEP: e.g. if we add support for a one-way MEP using HTTP POST,
> how can a receiver tell that its a one-way rather than a request-
> response ?
>
> For HTTP we could consider adding a new HTTP header that specifies
> the MEP in use. Alternatively we could consider adding a new
> parameter to the media type, that would have the advantage of being
> useable in other protocol bindings.

I think either of those options are problematic because each would be
ignored when encountered by existing agents.

In general, deploying MEPs which aren't compatible extensions of
existing MEPs is problematic because of this extensibility problem. 
Had SOAP 1.2 used RFC 2774 as SOAP 1.1 did, this wouldn't be as big an
issue.

And regarding the oneway example, can I ask why it's necessary to
indicate the oneway-ness of an interaction in the request message? 
Any other motivating examples for this practice?

Cheers,

Mark.
--
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 18:00:39 GMT

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