RE: Spec draft

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 10:24 PM
To: Damodaran, Suresh
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Spec draft


>5. Sec 1.2, Para 2 after Figure 2:
>"The request/response pattern is also often called the remote procedure
call (RPC) oriented interaction style."
>
>Since the request/response pair doesn't have to be synchronous (more on the
need to define what is synchronous below), this classification is unfair.
 
You seem to imply that the RPC style has to be synchronous. I don't think
that is specified either in SOAP 1.2 or in WSDL 1.2.
 
<sd>
Yes, I do imply RPC style is synchronous (despite the fact that you may
register "remote" call backs and this style may be construed as asynchronous
by some). More explanation below.
What do SOAP 1.2 and WSDL 1.2 say to this, in your view?
 
</sd>
>"An entity A communicates with entity B synchronously over a communication
channel if A requires a response back from B, and A does not initiate
another communication to B >using the same communication channel before it
receives that response. 

>In the Web Services  messaging context, the response could be a response to
a request, an acknowledgement, error, or a combination of these.

 

The acknowledgement case might need some additional wording, otherwise it
could be confusing. In some cases A might receive an acknowledgement back
right away (either from B or from an intermediary, e.g. a store&forward
node), which just means that the message was submitted successfully. But the
"real" response expected from B arrives later via an asynchronous response.
So we would be in the asynchronous case, even though A received a
synchronous "acknowledgement".

 

<sd>

The definition concerns only with a specific communication from one entity
to another. 

The key is to define "communication"

In a given situation, a communication may include only one "call" (a la RPC)
or one "message"  (I have assumed one call/message above)

It is perfectly possible that one defines a communication to consist of
composite "calls" or "messages," in which case the case you raise will
happen. Yes, one could explain this

difference. Good point. BTW, another interesting point is how one defines an
"entity."

 

</sd>

 

Cheers,

-Suresh 
Sterling Commerce (on loan to RosettaNet)