- From: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:31:55 -0500
- To: tom@coastin.com
- Cc: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@sun.com>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Tom,
Aren't the flexibility and optimization concerns you bring up covered
within the scope of issue 6?
Paco
Tom Rutt
<tom@coastin.com> To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Sent by: cc: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@sun.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
public-ws-addressing-req Subject: Re: i028: Implications of the presence of ReplyTo
uest@w3.org
11/12/2004 12:22 PM
Please respond to tom
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 19:32:40 UTC