W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > August 2002

RE: resolution of issue 228

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 05:11:26 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E01FC62BC@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>
Cc: <xmlp-comments@w3.org>

FYI - the resolution for 227 is at[1]

Gudge

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Jul/0093.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Williams, Stuart [mailto:skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com] 
> Sent: 14 August 2002 12:54
> To: 'Yves Lafon'
> Cc: xmlp-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: resolution of issue 228
> 
> 
> 
> Yves,
> 
> I could be happy with this resolution depending on the actual 
> resolution of #227.
> 
> I actually prefer the previous text to this replacement 
> because it is closer to being explicit about what Web Methods 
> may be used with the exchange patterns we have defined so 
> far. The resolution text implies a that a degree of judgement 
> is required on the part of someone (who?) that a given mep 
> and web method are compatible - I think judgements will 
> differ in which case this specifies nothing.
> 
> Alternatives are to:
> 
> a) Place the onus on a MEP specification to state what Web 
> Methods may be used in conjunction with that MEP for those 
> bindings that provide both Web Method and the given MEP (and 
> state what Web Method (if any) is used by default).
> 
> b) Place the onus on the Web Method feature specification to 
> state what MEPs a given Web Method may be use with. 
> 
> c) Allow either MEP or Web Method to default in the event of 
> underspecification in a message exchange context (ie. Web 
> Method used with unspecified MEP or MEP used with unspecified 
> Web Method).
> 
> d) Recognise that Web Method and MEP are not orthogonal and 
> rethink the whole business of MEP and Web Method.
> 
> I think resolution of this issue is in extricably linked to 
> and subordinate to the resolution of #227.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stuart
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yves Lafon [mailto:ylafon@w3.org]
> > Sent: 30 July 2002 20:11
> > To: xmlp-comments@w3.org
> > Cc: skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> > Subject: resolution of issue 228
> > 
> > 
> > Stuart,
> > During the last f2f, the WG came up with this decision to
> > close issue 228
> > [1]:
> > 
> > <<
> >   Replace last paragraph of [2] with "Bindings implementing 
> this feature
> >   MUST employee a Message Exchange Pattern with semantics that are
> >   compatible with the web method selected.  For example, 
> the (link to
> >   response only)  pattern is compatible with GET.
> > >>
> > 
> > If you feel that this does not adequately address the issue 
> that you 
> > raised, please contact the WG ASAP.
> > 
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x228
> > [2]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part2-20020626/#webmethods
tatemachine

-- 
Yves Lafon - W3C
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2002 08:12:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:27 GMT