- From: Rokicki, Derek <Derek.Rokicki@softwareag.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:24:40 -0500
- To: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
- Cc: <public-soap-jms@w3.org>
I am fine with these suggestions. The SOAP over Java Message Service 1.0 specification requires conformance with the following Message Exchange Patterns (MEP): Request-Response MEP and One-way MEP. Other MEPs, such as Robust In-Only and In-Optional-Out, are considered to be non-normative and are not documented in this specification. Individual vendors might offer solutions that implement non-normative MEPs. Any such solutions are considered proprietary and may not be interoperable with other vendors. If one or more vendors wish to introduce new MEPs to the SOAP over Java Message Service 1.0 specification, an extension to the specification should be developed. -----Original Message----- From: public-soap-jms-request@w3.org [mailto:public-soap-jms-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Amelia A Lewis Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 10:15 AM To: Rokicki, Derek Cc: public-soap-jms@w3.org Subject: Re: ACTION-68 One modification, if you don't mind: On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:01:23 -0500, Rokicki, Derek wrote: > Support for Non-Normative Message Exchange Patterns > > The SOAP over Java Message Service 1.0 specification requires > conformance with the following Message Exchange Patterns (MEP): > Request-Response MEP and One-way MEP. Other MEPs, such as Robust In-Only > and In-Optional-Out, are considered to be non-normative and are not > documented in this specification. > > Individual vendors might offer solutions that implement non-normative > MEPs. Any such solutions are considered proprietary and would not be > interoperable with other vendors. "would not be" is, in my opinion, too strong. If IBM and TIBCO and Software AG all agreed to implement a particular optional MEP interoperably, it would be interoperable. "may not be" seems more accurate, to me. > If one or more vendors wish to introduce new MEPs to the SOAP over Java > Message Service 1.0 specification, an extension to the specification > must be developed. And here I'd recommend that "must" become "should". Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Senior Architect TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:25:16 UTC