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

Re: ISSUE: Inconsistency in number of properties

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 13:48:15 -0400
To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Cc: "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF89ACB756.FF4200FC-ON852571E2.006165A7-852571E2.0061CD8D@lotus.com>

David Hull writes:

> Hang on.  The req-rep MEP has two properties for two messages. 
> InboundMessage is the request and OutboundMessage is the response.

This may explain why we're going in circles, because my reading of the 
SOAP 1.2 Recommendation is clearly different than yours.  Table 6 says [1] 
of the requesting node:

"Initiate transmission of request message abstracted in 
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/OutboundMessage ."

Table 7 says [2] of the responding node:

"Start making an abstraction of the request message available in 
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/InboundMessage"  and "Initiate 
transmission of response message abstracted in 
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/OutboundMessage."

So, I believe my suggestion for what we should do in one-way is entirely 
consistent with the SOAP 1.2 precedent:  we should have a table with 
sender properties that contains ImmediateDestination and OutboundMessage; 
we should have a separate table for the receiver with ImmediateSender and 
InboundMessage.  As with SOAP 1.2 Req/Resp, inbound and outbound are 
always relative to the local node at which the work is being done. 

Noah

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part2/#tabreqstatetrans
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part2/#tabresstatetrans

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 7 September 2006 17:48:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:23 GMT