- From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:38:37 -0500
- To: "Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>
- Cc: public-ws-async-tf@w3.org
On Feb 16, 2005, at 11:23 AM, Liu, Kevin wrote: > How about direct HTTP binding? Does it work for this use case? > Not sure what you mean, if you mean the WSDL 2.0 HTTP binding then I think the answer is yes. Marc. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-ws-async-tf-request@w3.org >> [mailto:public-ws-async-tf-request@w3.org] >> Sent: Tuesday, Feb 15, 2005 12:45 PM >> To: public-ws-async-tf@w3.org >> Subject: Use case 1 - one way >> >> >> >> * Description >> >> This case involves an in-only operation. >> >> * Can we achieve with current specs? >> >> Yes and no. >> >> WSDL 1.1 and 2.0 both support an 'in-only' MEP. >> SOAP 1.1 + WS-I BP 1.1 (see R2714, R2750, R2727) allows one way >> messages using the HTTP SOAP binding >> SOAP 1.2 doesn't define a one way (at least not an in-only >> one) MEP and >> the SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding requires a SOAP envelope in the HTTP >> response >> entity body. > > >> * Minimal change necessary to support? >> >> Define SOAP 1.2 one-way MEP. Modify SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding to allow an >> empty HTTP response entity body. >> >> * Ideal solution with no restrictions on changes? >> >> As above, no additional changes required. >> >> --- >> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> >> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems. >> >> >> >> --- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2005 16:38:40 UTC