- From: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:22:55 -0800
- To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- CC: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@sun.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Martin Gudgin wrote: > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] >>Sent: 12 November 2004 17:02 >>To: Marc Hadley >>Cc: Martin Gudgin; public-ws-addressing@w3.org >>Subject: Re: i028: Implications of the presence of ReplyTo >> >> >> >>Also, if there is no need for transport independence, the >>message should >>not have to send wsa:reply to when a wsdl request/response is bound >>to a request/response transport (e.g., soap http/post binding). >> >> > >How does the crafter of a message determine whether there is a need for >transport independence or not? I might be adding WS-Addressing headers >to a message at a layer that is unaware of the binding in use. And the >layer processing the WS-Addressing headers on the receiver side might >not know what binding the message came in on. > > I am speaking of an environment where the flexibility of EPRs is desired, but the day to day infrastructure in use is in an exclusively soap/httpPost environment. As an optimization, the sender may know the environment it is using, and does not need to send stuff that is unnecessary. > > >>I >>would say wsa:replyTo is only required to be send when the request / >>response >>is bound to a one way underlying transport. >> >> > >I really believe this would be a mistake. I really want a world where >the set of headers is NOT dependant on *how* the message is transmitted >( or how some future message will be transmitted ). > > I want a world where extraneous stuff not needed for a particular application of WS:addressing must be sent. Some Fujtisu product people desire the ability to optimize and tune for performance in tighly constrainted infrastructure environments. >Gudge > > > >>Tom Rutt >> >>Marc Hadley wrote: >> >> >> >>>On Nov 12, 2004, at 6:08 AM, Martin Gudgin wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>>On Nov 11, 2004, at 3:01 PM, Martin Gudgin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>So it sounds like you'd be in favor of saying that presence >>>>>>>of ReplyTo >>>>>>>implies a request is expected and that absence >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>indicates a one-way >> >> >>>>>>>message ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>Nope. I think that if you expect a reply, you MUST specify [reply >>>>>>endpoint]. So in request-response style MEPs [reply >>>>>> >>>>>> >>endpoint] would >> >> >>>>>>always be specified in the request message. However, I >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>don't think that >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>specifying [reply endpoint] necessarily means you expect >>>>>> >>>>>> >>a reply (in >> >> >>>>>>request/response stylee). Does that make sense. I'm saying >>>>>> >>>>>> if a then b >>>>>> >>>>>>but I'm NOT saying >>>>>> >>>>>> if b then a >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>I understand what you mean but I'm not sure it makes >>>>> >>>>> >>sense ;-). If we >> >> >>>>>could say that presence of ReplyTo indicates that a reply >>>>> >>>>> >>is expected >> >> >>>>>then that would seem like a useful semantic. What's the >>>>> >>>>> >>purpose of a >> >> >>>>>ReplyTo in a message that isn't expected to generate a reply ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>OK, it depends on what you mean when you say 'generate a >>>> >>>> >>reply'. Do you >> >> >>>>mean >>>> >>>>a) 'generate a reply as part of the same WSDL MEP' >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Yes. >>> >>> >>> >>>>b) 'generate a reply, not necessarily part of the same WSDL MEP' >>>> >>>>I have certain protocols that do specify a [reply >>>> >>>> >>endpoint], do expect >> >> >>>>(hope?) that a reply to be sent at some point, but NOT as >>>> >>>> >>part of the >> >> >>>>same WSDL operation as the initial message. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>That's the kind of scenario I was getting it when I raised >>> >>> >>issue i015 >> >> >>>about redirection. E.g. if a responder in a request >>> >>> >>response MEP sends >> >> >>>back a ReplyTo header, do we expect that to apply to subsequent >>>interactions between the requester and responder. I.e. what is the >>>scope of the effect of a ReplyTo, is it scoped to an instance of a >>>particular MEP or something wider ? Till now I'd been assuming the >>>former, are you suggesting it should be the latter ? >>> >>>Cheers, >>>Marc. >>> >>>--- >>>Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> >>>Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>-- >>---------------------------------------------------- >>Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com >>Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 17:25:04 UTC