- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:59:26 -0700
- To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF108C94EA@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
I was thinking about Paco's desire for ReplyTo to have a desire for a distinguished attribute to indicate that no response is expected. Effectively, I think that he wants messages to be self-describing wrt MEPs. A one-way MEP over HTTP would be no-response for ReplyTo and FaultTo. A robust-in-only MEP over HTTP would be no-response for ReplyTo and anonymous FaultTo. A request-response MEP over HTTP would be anonymous ReplyTo and anonymous FaultTo. >From an intermediary's perspective, it could look at the ReplyTo and FaultTo to determine the MEP. It seems worth calling out, that making messages self-describing from an MEP perspective hasn't been forcefully called out as a requirement on WS-A to date. Another way of looking at this is that it moves the WSDL 2.0 MEP functionality into WSDL 1.1 via WS-Addressing. If you want a robust in-only MEP over HTTP, you use WSDL 1.1 and then WS-A with the values listed above. This seems like it might have a side-effect of hurting wsdl 2.0 adoption, in the same way the WS-I BP "backporting" parts of SOAP 1.2 into SOAP 1.1 has probably hurt SOAP 1.2 adoption. Cheers, Dave
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2005 23:59:31 UTC