Re: Proposed text for async

I'm a bit unclear on the difference between "N.2 Anonymous response  
endpoint not used" and "Non-anonymous response endpoint used". In  
particular we require a [reply endpoint] if the MEP indicates that a  
response should be expected so I wouldn't expect in-out to fall under  
N.2 at all, it would either be N.1 or N.3. What am I missing ?

Marc.

On Nov 14, 2005, at 12:18 PM, David Hull wrote:

> This may or may not be behind the "don't go there" door.  However,  
> it is short, it requires no changes to the SOAP adjuncts beyond the  
> already agreed addition of a SOAP one-way MEP, and I believe it  
> unambiguously defines what to put on the wire for the various  
> combinations of MEP and endpoint, assuming only that there is some  
> way to determine the transport binding for a given response EPR  
> (that last item lying behind a different door we decided not to open).
>
> In particular, it defines clearly what we mean by the anonymous  
> endpoint.
>
> N. Binding of WSDL MEPs to transport The following rules define the  
> required handling of [reply endpoint] and [fault endpoint],  
> collectively referred to as response endpoints, in the context of  
> the WS-Addressing SOAP binding, when WS-Addressing is engaged.
>
> In what follows
> A response endpoint is used if it is the destination of a message  
> belonging to the WSDL MEP of the operation being invoked.
> An endpoint is anonymous if its [address] is the anonymous endpoint  
> defined in section 2.1 of the WS-Addressing core.
> An endpoint is null if its [address] is the "none" endpoint defined  
> in section 2.1 of the WS-Addressing core.
> N.1 Anonymous response endpoint used
> If an anonymous endpoint is used, then the entire operation MUST  
> comply with the SOAP request-response MEP defined in section 6.2 of  
> the SOAP adjuncts, as bound to the transport of the endpoint.
> NOTE: In the context of the currently defined WSDL 2.0 MEPs, this  
> will occur in the following cases:
> robust in-only, if a fault is produced and the [fault endpoint] is  
> anonymous.
> in-out, if a normal reply is produced and the [reply endpoint] is  
> anonymous.
> in-out, if a fault is produced and the [fault endpoint] is anonymous.
> N.2 Anonymous response endpoint not used If no anonymous endpoints  
> are used, whether because none are present or because there is no  
> message with such an endpoint as a destination, the delivery of the  
> inbound message of the operation MUST comply with the SOAP one-way  
> MEP (to be defined), as bound to the transport of the endpoint.
> NOTE: In the context of the currently defined WSDL 2.0 MEPs, this  
> will occur in the following cases:
> in-only
> robust in-only, if no fault is produced
> robust in-only, if a fault is produced but the [fault endpoint] is  
> not anonymous
> in-out, if a normal reply is produced but the [reply endpoint] is  
> not anonymous
> in-out, if a fault is produced but the [fault endpoint] is not  
> anonymous
> N.3 Non-anonymous response endpoint used If a non-anonymous, non- 
> null EPR is used as the destination of an outbound message, the  
> outbound message MUST comply with the SOAP one-way MEP (to be  
> defined), as bound to the transport of the EPR in question.
> NOTE: In the context of the currently defined WSDL 2.0 MEPs, this  
> will occur in the following cases:
> robust in-only, if a fault is produced and the [fault endpoint] is  
> not anonymous and not null.
> in-out, if a normal reply is produced and the [reply endpoint] is  
> not anonymous and not null.
> in-out, if a fault is produced and the [fault endpoint] is not  
> anonymous and not null.
> NOTE: In the case of a robust in-only operation MEP with an  
> anonymous [fault endpoint], or the case of an in-out MEP where one  
> response endpoint is anonymous and the other is not, either rule N. 
> 1 or rules N.2 and N.3 will apply depending on the outcome of the  
> operation.  For this reason, bindings for transports which support  
> both the SOAP one-way and request-response MEPs must be defined in  
> such a way that the inbound message handling is identical for both  
> MEPs, and the sender can determine that the operation has completed  
> whether or not the anonymous endpoint is used.
>
> NOTE: In the case of the SOAP/HTTP binding, the WS-Addressing  
> working group will assume, for the purposes of testing, that the  
> SOAP one-way MEP consists of the request half of the existing  
> request-response MEP together with an HTTP 202 response containing  
> an empty SOAP envelope.

---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.