- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 18:07:16 +0200
- To: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
- CC: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Sorry I was somewhat cryptic. I was trying to say that SOAP MEPs don't really have an existence outside SOAP bindings. SOAP MEPs are defined as "abstract" state machines (e.g. Request-Response MEP[1]), and these state machines are implemented/turned concrete by SOAP bindings (e.g. HTTP binding[2]). If the underlying protocol supports the MEP natively, then the binding is (rather) straightforward (e.g. HTTP binding[2]). If the underlying protocol does not support the MEP, then the binding can be more complex (e.g. EMail binding[3]); the binding implementation/glue layer has to do more work. This has to be contrasted with other features (e.g. signature) that may leave outside the binding, e.g. expressed as SOAP header block(s). Jean-Jacques. [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.html#singlereqrespmep [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.html#http-msgexop [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-soap12-email-20020626#NE69 Ugo Corda wrote: >>SOAP 1.2 also introduces Message Exchange >>Patterns (MEPs), which are a 3rd type of "feature" >>(supported by bindings only). > > > I don't fully understand the "supported by bindings only" part, because it > seems to imply that a particular MEP can exist only if the underlying > binding naturally supports it. For example, I could have a Request-Response > MEP with an HTTP binding but not with Email binding, which is evidently not > true. > > SOAP 1.2 Part 1, section 3.3, also says "A MEP MAY be supported by one or > more underlying protocol binding instances": a MAY, not a MUST. > > Ugo >
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2002 12:06:53 UTC