Re: Use case 3

David Hull wrote:
> 
> Roberto Chinnici wrote:
> 
>>
>> * Description of the scenario
>>
>> In this use case, a client contacts a server using transport T1. The
>> response is sent back asynchronously using a callback made over a
>> potentially different transport T2. Even if the transports are the 
>> same, the request and response messages could use different connections,
>> making this case different from #6.
> 
> 
> I don't understand this statement.  In case 6, if I send an HTTP 
> request, and the explicit reply-to address is also HTTP, then there is 
> one transport but two connections.  On the other hand, if it's not HTTP, 
> then you have two different transports and (naturally) two connections.  
> Finally, if it's anonymous, you have one transport and one connection.
> 
> As far as I can tell, case 6 subsumes case 3 and perhaps others.
> 
> 

The usecases were created from the WSDL perspective.
Usecase 3 is asynch req/response where there is a single WSDL operation 
and it is clear from the WSDL doc that the req/response is asynch
Usecase 6 is again a single WSDL operation (req/res) but the WSDL does 
not explicitly say that it is asynch. It is the runtime ws-addr header 
that tells you whether it is synch or asynch (and this fact will be 
indicated in the WSDL).

So I think there is a slight difference between the two usecases 
especially the way the operation will be expressed in WSDL.

HTH.

-Anish
--

Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2005 19:35:54 UTC