- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 22:05:47 -0800
- To: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-addressing- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yalcinalp, Umit <snip/> > Our proposal specifically defined how the request-response would use two > distinct HTTP connections, 202, etc. <snip/> I think it's standard practice to call how a request response uses a protocol including the protocol status codes a "binding". My concern with doing away with MEPs completely is exactly shown by this proposal. Without any kind of protocol/lower level MEP, it is impossible to talk about what happens with request response without talking about a particular binding, in your case SOAP HTTP. In a binding extension that controls interaction patterns like usingAddressing, you end up either a) not talking about meps/bindings/protocols at all, which is very unusable, or b) talking about a specific binding/protocol, which is highly undesirable from a re-use, layering, modularity, and "well-factoring" perspective. Well factored and modularized design of specs is one of the tenets of the Web Services architecture, or at least so it's been said. Cheers, Dave
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 06:06:13 UTC