RE: resolution of issue 228

Martin,

Thanks... I was not addressed by that message. I will respond separately to
that from the archive.

Regards,

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:mgudgin@microsoft.com]
> Sent: 14 August 2002 13:11
> To: Williams, Stuart; Yves Lafon
> Cc: xmlp-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: resolution of issue 228
> 
> 
> 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 10:00:00 UTC