- From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:17:46 -0800
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- CC: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>, public-ws-async-tf@w3.org
I was mixing my MEPs. I should have said, 'SOAP-response MEP [1] would not be covered by this über-MEP', instead of 'out-only would not be covered by this über-MEP'. -Anish -- [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#soapresmep David Orchard wrote: > 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 23:23:43 UTC