RE: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc

Yes

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 02:35:19 PM:

> 
> 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
>