RE: Ueber-MEPs and points North

Anish, 

Thanks for the pointer but the intention of message was not only to capture the minutes, but also to ask opinion of the wg whether there is a colloborative understanding as to how the mapping between WSDL MEP  and uber SOAP-MEP should be. This is why I provided the simple mapping chart. 

I think it would be constructive to go from there simply filling the details, also differentiating when WS-A is engaged, when not. Our goal is not only to solve async case, but we are also tackling the one-way message binding for SOAP. 

HTH, 

--umit
 



-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-async-tf-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-async-tf-request@w3.org] 
Sent: Monday, Mar 28, 2005 4:23 PM
To: Yalcinalp, Umit
Cc: David Hull; public-ws-async-tf@w3.org
Subject: Re: Ueber-MEPs and points North


The minutes of the concall are located at:
http://www.w3.org/2005/03/23-ws-async-minutes.html

HTH

-Anish
--

Yalcinalp, Umit wrote:
> My recollection is that the "in" segment is not optional, although there was some mutterings about it which I did not quite catch, probably due to the fact that we have also out* MEPs that we need to deal with. 
> 
> My understanding is the following chart with respect to the relationships between the WSDL MEPs and the uber SOAP mep (in-optional-out):
> 
> WSDL in ==> SOAP in-optional-out MEP. The optional output message is never generated, but the http response would be generated to be 202. 
> 
> WSDL robust-in => SOAP in-optional-out MEP. The output message will contain the SOAP fault only. 
> 
> WSDL in-optional-out => SOAP in-optional-out MEP. (Works only when non-anonymous ReplyTo is not used). 
> 
> AFAIK, we have touched upon, but did not agree whether WSDL in-out may yield two separate SOAP MEPs when ws-addressing is engaged, but not in the last concall. 
> 
> Any comments/corrections are welcome. 
> 
> 
> --umit
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-async-tf-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-async-tf-request@w3.org] 
> Sent: Monday, Mar 28, 2005 1:50 PM
> To: public-ws-async-tf@w3.org
> Subject: Ueber-MEPs and points North
> 
> 
> 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 Tuesday, 29 March 2005 18:17:33 UTC