- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:49:55 -0500
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, WS-Addressing <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
On 1/20/06, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com> wrote: > Sounds like it's a request-optional response HTTP binding that y'all are > looking for. Well, the other way of looking at it is that request-no-response (aka "one way") is a special case of request-optional-response. Mark. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mbaker@gmail.com [mailto:mbaker@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mark > Baker > > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:41 AM > > To: David Orchard > > Cc: Christopher B Ferris; WS-Addressing > > Subject: Re: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc > > > > On 1/20/06, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com> wrote: > > > 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? > > > > From my POV, yep! > > > > Mark. > -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
Received on Friday, 20 January 2006 19:50:05 UTC