RE: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc

There is a lot of level mixing going on.  I don't think that an optional
SOAP response should be part of a "one-way" binding.  Sure, it might be
a WSDL one-way, but we are talking about SOAP not WSDL.  SOAP
definitions shouldn't be coupled up the stack to WSDL, and I'm against
defining SOAP things in the context of WSDL.  SOAP shouldn't know
anything about the stuff that is describing it, beit WSDL, Policy,
Semantic Web, foo...

Again, it's an optional SOAP envelope, so in the context of a SOAP
binding it should be called optional response.  In the case of a WSDL
one-way, I'd see that the complete description, including things like
Policy assertions of RM-level acks and WSDL descriptions, is required to
accurately describe whether a SOAP envelope is allowed as a response or
not.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:26 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: Mark Baker; Christopher B Ferris; WS-Addressing
> Subject: Re: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc
> 
> Thinking more on this, isn't this still a one-way?
> I.e., a SOAP envelope can come back on the HTTP 202 response without
> making it a request-response.
> 
> 202 is intentionally non-committal. It says 'Accepted'. A RM-level ack
> does not mean that the SOAP envelope is a 'response' to the 'request'
in
> the HTTP request.
> 
> I think it is fine to call it one-way (as you did in your previous
> formulation). This is important, as there aren't any SOAP MEPs in SOAP
> 1.1 so everything is in the context of a WSDL operation. In the case
of
> status code 202, there isn't a WSDL level response as it is a WSDL
> one-way operation.
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> David Orchard wrote:
> > Sounds like it's a request-optional response HTTP binding that y'all
are
> > looking for.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >

Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 20:38:45 UTC