- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:36:03 -0800
- To: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, "David Hull" <dmh@tibco.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-async-tf@w3.org>
Unless the WSDL "out-only" was "bound" to a SOAP "in-optional-out" MEP that was then constrained to "in-only". There's a difference between the direction of the WSDL mep and the direction of the SOAP mep. Oh joy. Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-async-tf-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-async-tf- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Anish Karmarkar > Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 2:21 PM > To: David Hull > Cc: public-ws-async-tf@w3.org > Subject: Re: Ueber-MEPs and points North > > > David, > > The über-MEP that we discussed on the call was in-optional-out. > IIRC, this was also a SOAP MEP and *not* a WSDL MEP. > Therefore, 'out-only' would not be covered by this über-MEP. > > -Anish > -- > > David Hull wrote: > > > > For the benefit of those who, through nobody's fault but their own, > > didn't make the last conference call (and for anyone else just reading > > the list and not on the concalls), could someone outline how the new > > "über-MEP" would work? From context, I gather that it would be composed > > of an "in" segment and an "out" segment, both optional, with "in-only", > > "out-only" and "in-out" falling out as special cases. Is this basically > > correct? > > > >
Received on Monday, 28 March 2005 22:45:28 UTC