- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:35:19 -0800
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "WS-Addressing" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
So y'all are looking for a binding that says a 202 is allowed and if so, the response may or may not contain a SOAP envelope. It's the preclusion of the soap envelope that's the problem? Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: mbaker@gmail.com [mailto:mbaker@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mark Baker > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:16 AM > To: Christopher B Ferris > Cc: David Orchard; WS-Addressing; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org > Subject: Re: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc > > +1 (we've *got* to stop doing this, Chris 8-) > > AFAICT, it's the 202 response semantic that provides the desired > "one-way"-ness here, but making use of it obviously requires a > response be sent. Moreover, those semantics are independent of the > content of the response. Therefore, as I said before[1] (re SOAP > 1.2), I can see no reason why a response body should be disallowed. > Even a SOAP envelope should be fine, because the 202 code tells the > client that the envelope does *not* represent the results of > processing the request. > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Jan/0057 > > Mark. > > On 1/20/06, Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > <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] > > > -- > Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca > Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
Received on Friday, 20 January 2006 19:35:46 UTC