i028: RE: i028: Implications of the presence of ReplyTo

But the presence of "ReplyTo" does not necessarily mandate a [WSDL]
Request-response operation type:
aren't we talking of possibly long-lasting MEPs, asynchronous
request-responses,
(e.g. implemented as two separate One-way calls in opposite directions)
where the application logic behind the WS operation needs be given a
response address?
(and i030 makes the case that precisely, ReplyTo may not be needed with a
[WSDL]request-response type)

 So I believe a message with ReplyTo and a message without, could both be
carried over a One-way message.

Now the problem I see with ReplyTo, is that the requirement of including a
ReplyTo element must be operation-specific, not WS-specific. 
For the same WS instance, operation A may require it, operation B may not.
As a user, how will I know that I "MUST include ReplyTo" for A? Shouldn't
the EPR tell me that?

Jacques
Fujitsu Software



-----Original Message-----
From: Brinild [mailto:brinild@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 6:03 PM
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: RE: i028: Implications of the presence of ReplyTo




--- Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com> wrote:
>...And I don't think MEP semantics
> should be inferred from the presence/absence of wsa:
> headers ( although
> the set of such headers could be infered, or even
> explicitly stated, for
> a given MEP ).

Too bad.  The idea of having a self-describing soap
envelope has its appeal.  Also, knowing if its a
request/
response MEP by looking at the message can eliminate
some ambiguity; for example in cases where there are
two port-types with the same operation, one as a
request/response and one as a one-way.

=====
Brinild@yahoo.com
http://brinild.blogspot.com


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
www.yahoo.com