RE: NEW ISSUE: Support for asynchronous / multi-MEP usage of web services

Hi Umit!

Sorry about the misunderstanding - I had the AI to write the action up
from the WS-Addressing side (and also one to write up a proposal in the
TF), and Mark needed the text ASAP in order to have something to point
to in the agenda.  Since we'd gone back and forth about it on the list
after the concall last week, and there was no further discussion after
the last round, I assumed everyone was OK with the formulation that
Mark, DaveO, and I had bantered about.

We didn't discuss this text on the async call on Wednesday, for which
minutes should be available shortly.

I don't think the text of the issue is necessarily immutable, and so if
you (or others) feel that we should rejigger it to be closer to your
formulation, we could perhaps do that by keeping the issue # the same
and simply pointing to a different email - the important thing, as you
say, is that there's a place for it on the WSA issues list.  So if there
are salient points in your writeup that you think are missing from the
one I sent, please feel free to send comments/addenda.

Thanks,
--Glen 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-async-tf-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-async-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Yalcinalp, Umit
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 8:01 PM
> To: public-ws-async-tf@w3.org
> Subject: RE: NEW ISSUE: Support for asynchronous / multi-MEP 
> usage of web services
> 
> 
> Umm. I just sent my formulation of the issue and I see that you sent
> your formulation to WS-Addressing as well.  Did I miss something
> yesterday as I took an action item to write this down at last week's
> concall [1]? 
> 
> My impression was that we would both writeup the issue and decide what
> to file with WS-Addressing. Since there is no minutes for yesterday's
> concall, it is not clear whether a decision was made to go ahead and
> file yours.  
> 
> What is important is that in the end as long as we have a 
> comprehensive
> issue that is logged and addressed, but I would have not spent an hour
> or so thinking/writing and positioning it if my action item 
> was already
> disposed of :-(. 
> 
> --umit
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/04/06-ws-async-minutes.html
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-async-tf-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-async-tf-request@w3.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, Apr 14, 2005 3:57 PM
> To: public-ws-async-tf@w3.org; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: NEW ISSUE: Support for asynchronous / multi-MEP usage of web
> services
> 
> 
> 
> Title: Support for asynchronous / multi-MEP usage of web services
> 
> Background:
> 
> This issue serves as a placeholder for the stuff falling into the
> "async" bag.  How do we correctly and interoperably specify 
> the behavior
> for callbacks, asynch responses, etc. over multiple transports in a
> consistent way?  How do the various layers of MEPs (application, WSDL,
> SOAP) bind to each other?  Etc.
> 
> Justification:
> 
> Our charter indicates that we must specify how the MAPs are to be used
> in order to achieve asynchrony with all WSDL 1.1 and 2.0 MEPs.  At
> present there is no interoperable way to do this, partially due to
> limitations or omissions which exist in the current SOAP and 
> WSDL specs.
> In order for the WS-Addressing group to declare victory (and build a
> functional test suite), these limitations/omissions must be remedied,
> and WS-Addressing must also appropriately adapt (if necessary) to
> support these patterns.
> 
> Proposal to move forward:
> 
> This issue is now being dealt with in the large by the Async TF [1],
> which any member of WSDL/WS-Addressing/XMLP may join.  The task force
> has already presented several questions to the WGs, and hopes 
> to bring a
> set of concrete proposals/recommendations to the floor for 
> consideration
> in the coming weeks.
> 
> Thanks,
> --Glen
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-async-tf/
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 15 April 2005 00:52:29 UTC