Re: Another proposal for async extensions

On Jun 16, 2005, at 3:37 PM, Yalcinalp, Umit wrote:
>
> I am comparing your proposal with the original SOAP 1.2 fix that I  
> sent
> a while back.
>
> You chose to indicate the NextState as Success, which indicates  
> terminal
> states of the soap request response MEP. It seems to me adding a
> separate item to the table for 202 is necessary but not sufficient,
> because you chose to terminate the MEP. Termination leaves the
> definition of how the response message can be generated and sent out,
> which seems incomplete to me.
>
> I tried to take a stab at this, which I did not get responses other  
> than
> DavidO.
>
> Perhaps you can clarify this point as to why you think that we can
> terminate the MEP without considering what happens to the response
> (NextState)
>
 From the perspective of the SOAP requestor, the MEP is finished, the  
202 indicates that the responder received the message and is planning  
to honor the [reply endpoint] or [fault endpoint] contained within  
it. On the responder side things continue after the 202 is sent,  
you'll notice that I also added a delta such that the responder jumps  
from the receiving state to the sending state of a SOAP requestor  
since it is now sending a message (the response) as a request in a  
new HTTP connection.

Is that any clearer ?

Marc.

---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.