Re: Spec draft

Indeed the Request-Response MEP is not synchronous by nature, as 
is demonstrated by the Email binding[1]. For a moment, I had 
taken the MEP's state machines too literaly, when they are only a 
logical view. Sorry for the confusion.

Jean-Jacques.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-soap12-email-20020626#NE69

Ugo Corda wrote:
> I strongly disagree that the spec implies that the Request-Response MEP is
> synchronous by nature. (Just a couple of days ago you said that the
> JMS-based asynchronous Request-Response scenario I brought up is perfectly
> consistent with the spec). 
> 
> I also believe that message-based asynchronous Request-Response MEPs will be
> central to the successful application of Web services to EAI and B2B.
> 
> Ugo
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 12:42 AM
> To: Ugo Corda
> Cc: 'Damodaran Suresh'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Spec draft
> 
> 
> I think the implication of the current text:
> 
>     "The SOAP RPC Representation employs the
>      6.2 SOAP Request-Response Message Exchange Pattern and
>      6.3 SOAP Response Message Exchange Pattern. Use of
>      the SOAP RPC Representation with other MEPs MAY be possible,
>      but is beyond the scope of this specification."
> 
> is that RPC in SOAP 1.2 *as described by the spec* is essentially 
> synchronous -because of the synchronous nature of the Req-Resp 
> and SOAP-Resp MEPs. The extension of the spec to other, 
> asynchronous MEPs, is left as an exercise to the reader.
> 
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> Ugo Corda wrote:
> 
>>As far as I can see, SOAP and WSDL focus only on the type of operation 
>>signature associated with the RPC style (see for example WSDL 1.2, 
>>section 2.5), and don't say anything to the effect that the RPC style 
>>should be synchronous. If you see any implication to that in any of 
>>those specs, please point it out to me.
> 
>

Received on Friday, 11 October 2002 02:54:00 UTC