RE: Markup

I can live with that..

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Marc Hadley
> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:24 PM
> To: David Hull
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Markup
> 
> 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.
>

Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2005 06:26:58 UTC