Re: Clean up of state tables

On Sunday, Sep 22, 2002, at 20:49 US/Eastern, Martin Gudgin wrote:
>
> I cleaned up stuff regarding URIs for property values.
>
> 	Made sure all URIs that function as bases URIs have trailing
> 	Changed several occurences of soap/mep/request-response so
> soap/mep/soap-response in section 6.3
>
> If someone could cast an eye over it and make sure I didn't break
> anything...
>
Its broken, but I don't think you necessarily broke it ;-). The problem 
is the use of two different state machines in 6.2 and 6.3 that share 
the same relative names (e.g. Sending+Receiving) but now have four 
different base URIs:

http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/request-response/RequestingSOAPNode/
http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/request-response/RespondingSOAPNode/
http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/soap-response/RequestingSOAPNode/
http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/soap-response/RespondingSOAPNode/)

The main problem with this is that the HTTP binding text tries to 
describe support for both request-response and soap-response in the 
same place (section 7.5) by only referring to the relative state names. 
This was OK before we made the state names absolute since 
Sending+Receiving was effectively one state shared by both state 
machines. Yhat was why I left the value of reqres:Role in table 9 
unchanged in my original edit - to make both state machines share the 
same state names.

I think we have two options:

(i) rethink the base URI for the states such that they are shared by 
both request-response and soap-response - or -
(ii) Split section 7.5 into two, one for each state machine.

I'd prefer (i) but LC issue 305 might push our choice to (ii).

Marc.

> I also removed generics.
>
> Gudge
>
>
--
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.