- From: Conor P. Cahill <concahill@aol.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:07:17 -0400
- To: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>
- cc: "David Hull" <dmh@tibco.com>, "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, tom@coastin.com, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Mark Little wrote on 6/16/2005, 9:49 AM: > > I think it more closely maps to the requirements, particularly > since you can't have a MessageID/RequestID without a ReplyTo. > However, what are the semantics if you have a RequestID and > no ReplyTo? Doesn't the syntax of RequestID imply a response > is also required and hence the name might still be confusing? > (Just playing Devil's Advocate.) I think a request can always have a RequestID. I think that if a requestor expects a response they should positively identify such by having some new datum that indicates this (perhaps an attribute on the wsa:To). I think that Replies should go the ReplyTo if specified, the From if ReplyTo is not specified (and I know that this brings up more potential issues as to the interpetation mix of FaultTo/ReplyTo/From). Conor
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2005 14:07:39 UTC