- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 22:02:01 -0400
- To: "Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 04:24:59PM -0400, Newcomer, Eric wrote: > The dilemma as I see it is that the pub repository is actually an ultimate destination, but the pub/sup MEP includes both the publish message interaction and the subscribe message interaction. Pretty much, though I don't think there will be a "pub/sub MEP", because of the reasons you give (it's really two interactions), plus the fact that "publish" and "subscribe" are application semantics, and therefore above the MEP layer. "publish" should just use the req/resp MEP, while "subscribe" could use either the req/resp MEP (for blocking subscriptions), or a req/resp MEP on the subscription, and a one-way on the notify. >..and there isn't a definition of this type of "intermediary" in the SOAP spec. That's what my xmlp-comments post is asking to clarify. I think it is really in there by virtue of not being disallowed, it just doesn't need to be spelled out because it's purpose falls outside the domain of the SOAP processing model. MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 22:01:34 UTC