RE: Self-describing Messages wrt MEPs

Definitely something like that.  

I would say that the scoping rules are as rigorous and as vague as the
definition of "ReplyTo".   That is, if the receiver thinks of ReplyTo as
scoped to a SOAP MEP then it can't send a SOAP MEP response.  If it
thinks of ReplyTo as scoped to a higher level construct, then it can't
send a higher level construct response.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM [mailto:Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 7:22 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: Rogers, Tony; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Self-describing Messages wrt MEPs
> 
> So we'd pre-define a second [destination] URI to accompany the
> existing anonymous URI:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/null
> 
> Where
> 
> <wsa:ReplyTo>
>    <wsa:Address>http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/null<wsa:Address>
> </wsa:ReplyTo>
> 
> and
> 
> <wsa:FaultTo>
>    <wsa:Address>http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/null<wsa:Address>
> </wsa:FaultTo>
> 
> are equivalent to
> 
> 1>/dev/null and 2>/dev/null for the Unix minded among us ?
> 
> What would be the semantics of such a wsa:ReplyTo though, would it
> mean "never send me a reply to this message" or "don't use any
> available back channel to send me a reply, but you can reply in other
> ways" ? In other words is it scoped to the SOAP MEP, the WSDL MEP or
> some higher level 'conversation' ?
> 
> Marc.
> 
> 
> On Jun 22, 2005, at 5:08 PM, David Orchard wrote:
> 
> > Almost like wsa:nil?
> >
> >
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Rogers, Tony [mailto:Tony.Rogers@ca.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 5:49 PM
> > To: David Orchard; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Self-describing Messages wrt MEPs
> >
> >
> >
> > Even so, I do like this - explicitly calling out that no reply is
> > expected is a good thing.
> >
> >
> >
> > It does amuse me, though, to have a ReplyTo on a message that isn't
> > expecting a reply. Maybe that's just my warped sense of humour :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > Tony Rogers
> >
> > tony.rogers@ca.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-
> > addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Orchard
> > Sent: Wednesday, 22 June 2005 9:59
> > To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> > Subject: Self-describing Messages wrt MEPs
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> ---
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
> Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
>

Received on Thursday, 23 June 2005 15:33:37 UTC