- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:32:07 -0800
- To: "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "WS-Addressing" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9C632CB0@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
A receiver figures out whether it wants to send a SOAP envelope over the HTTP connection or not. If it doesn't want to send a SOAP envelope, it can use this binding. If it does, it can use the current SOAP 11 HTTP binding. Dave ________________________________ From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:17 AM To: David Orchard Cc: WS-Addressing Subject: RE: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc How does one distinguish between this binding and the current SOAP11 HTTP binding from the perspective of the receiving node? Cheers, Christopher Ferris STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440 phone: +1 508 377 9295 "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com> wrote on 01/20/2006 01:40:07 PM: > If you're returning a soap envelope in an HTTP response, by > definition you're not using a one-way binding. > > This doesn't affect the MEP in play because there is no MEP with soap 1.1. > > Dave > > > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 10:34 AM > To: David Orchard > Cc: WS-Addressing; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org > Subject: Re: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc > > > <decloak> > > Dave, > > I have *significant* heartburn with this as it precludes the use > case of sending a > WS-RM SequenceAcknowledgement (or other infrastructure-level signal) as a > SOAP envelope in the HTTP response. > > The use case is considered to be of critical importance to a number > of customers > with which I have dealt who want to leverage WS-RM for both oneway and asynch > request response message flows between business partners. > > This proposed binding simply carries forward the mistake that the WS-I BP 1.x > made with R2714 and R2750 (which I argued against at the time). > > I've got another post still in draft responding to another thread on > this matter > that I will be sending shortly. > > </decloak> > > Cheers, > > Christopher Ferris > STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440 > phone: +1 508 377 9295 > > public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 01/20/2006 01:09:47 PM: > > > Here's an xml spec xml and html version of a one-way HTTP Binding. > > > > Cheers, > > Dave[attachment "soap11onewayhttpbinding.xml" deleted by Christopher > > B Ferris/Waltham/IBM] [attachment "soap11onewayhttpbinding.html" > > deleted by Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM]
Received on Friday, 20 January 2006 19:32:26 UTC