RE: Use case 1 - one way

Yes, I mean WSDL2.0 http binding. 

Not sure if the answer is yes. To bind a in-only operation to http, what
should be the the HTTP responses? How the client should deal with the
response? I am not if the current spec provide guidance on this.

Best Regards,
Kevin
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marc Hadley [mailto:Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM] 
>Sent: Wednesday, Feb 16, 2005 08:39 AM
>To: Liu, Kevin
>Cc: public-ws-async-tf@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Use case 1 - one way
>
>
>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 17:20:08 UTC