- From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 21:09:58 -0800
- To: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
I would like to point out that this is almost the same as example 3-8 in DaveO's proposal [1]. -Anish -- [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Nov/0014.html Anish Karmarkar wrote: > > What we are talking about in the various proposals for issue i059 is > about changing bindings for a req-res operation to allow: > 1) the request and response to be sent out over different HTTP-connections > 2) WSDL authors to specify bindings to req-res operations that allow the > request and response to use different WSDL Binding(s). > > None of this is about "async" from a client programmer POV. They are > about bindings. Bindings specify how the message is serialized, and > bound to the transport including whether different connections are used > to send the request and response. For example, an SMTP binding will > inherently using multiple connections. As another example, I'm free to > write a single binding for a req-res operation which says the the > request is sent over HTTP and the response over SMTP. > > There is another requirement for 'async' which is at the abstract WSDL > level. Programing models and client-side APIs are generated by tools > using the portType/interface information. Having a 'async' marker in the > portType/interface as a hint to the WSDL processor is quite important > from a client POV -- since most tools generate client-side APIs from the > abstract WSDL. Pl. note that such a marker is only a hint, which says > that the response will very likely take a long time. This is not to say > that async apis cannot be layered over sync transport or vice versa. > This isn't about the binding/transport, it is about providing a hint to > the WSDL processor. I.e., one can use an async portType level maker and > use the default SOAP/HTTP binding that uses a single connection. On the > flip side one is also not prevented from using an non-async req-res > abstract operation from being bound to an async SMTP binding. Such a > marker allows the WSDL processor, if it chooses to do so, to generate > client-side APIs/programming model that takes into account that the > request and response is separated potentially by a large time interval. > > I would therefore like to propose an addendum to Marc's proposal [1] -- > we allow an attribute called wsaw:Async of type xs:boolean (restricted > to the value 'true') on the wsdl11:portType, > wsdl11:portType/wsdl1:operation, wsdl20:interface, > wsdl20:interface/wsdl20:operation element. The presence of this > attribute is a hint to the WSDL processor that the response and request > MAY be separated by a large time interval. > > -Anish > -- > > [1] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Nov/0003.html > >
Received on Monday, 7 November 2005 05:09:46 UTC