- From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:24:25 +0900
- To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
- Cc: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
- Message-id: <12980D5E-A7D3-45C9-83F3-020B53BE96BA@Sun.COM>
Given the discussion this morning I was thinking something like: <UsingAddressing anonymous="Required|Allowed|Disallowed"/> Where "Required" means you can only use anonymous ReplyTo, FaultTo, "Allowed" means you can use either anonymous or non-anonymous ReplyTo, FaultTo, and "Disallowed" means you can only use non- anonymous ReplyTo, FaultTo. Marc. On Nov 8, 2005, at 7:33 AM, David Hull wrote: > I'm become uncomfortable with the wide use of "async", particularly > in the markup (but also in the general discussion). The term > "async" refers to (at least) two separate things: > The client code using a callback instead of waiting for a method > return. > The server being able to send a response elsewhere than the > transport's built-in response channel. > I would prefer that the WSDL describing the server take the > server's point of view: > Rename the "AsyncOnly" flag (or async="always") to > "NoDirectResponse" (or "DirectResponse=false", default being true) > I had previously mentioned having the Async element carry one or > the other (but not both) of "ProtocolBinding" or "WsdlBinding". > Instead, have UsingAddressing take one or the other (but not both) > of the following child elements: > <ResponseProtocol>anyIRI</ResponseProtocol> > <ResponseBinding>qname</ResponseBinding> > As before, ResponseProtocol would be defined as shorthand for a > ResponseBinding with the desired effect. --- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2005 05:23:40 UTC