W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2002

RE: issue 26: transmission primitives

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 08:05:01 -0700
Message-ID: <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC107B0A6D2@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>


-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 11:53 PM
To: WS-Desc WG (Public)
Subject: issue 26: transmission primitives

I propose that we close the following issue as its redundant
against an already closed issue in the part1 doc:

    <title>transmission primitives</title>
    <originator><a href="mailto:ruellan@crf.canon.fr">Herve
    [See also issue 35-36]
Currently WSDL 1.1 defines 4 transmissions primitives (one-way,
request-response, solicit-response, notification).
SOAP 1.2 defines the concept of Message Exchange Pattern (MEP) [1]. A
MEP is a template for the exchange of messages between SOAP Nodes.

In its current state, WSDL 1.1 is not able to define which MEP a Web
Service will use over a SOAP binding (several different MEP can define a
one-way transmission primitive).

_Proposed solution_
As MEP are almost independant of SOAP 1.2, I would suggest replacing
transmission primitives by MEP.</pre>

The corresponding issues in the part1 doc make this redundant:

<issue id="issue-operation-patterns" status="closed">
  <head>Should more operation patterns be supported?</head>
  We discussed this briefly at the April F2F (perhaps) but, I think
  it would be extremely helpful to permit alternate and multiple
  responses to a request. That is permit multiple output messages in
  an operation like we have multiple faults in an operation. It would
  then be helpful to make them alternate or sequence. That is, do all
  of them come back or just one of them.
  <source>Prasad Yendluri</source>
  <resolution>This issue is closed by leaving it to the realm of
  orchestration languages and applications. June 11, 2002 (at

<issue id="issue-extensible-message-exchange-patterns" status="closed">
  <head>Should we have a mechanism to define extensible message
  exchange patterns?</head>
  See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002May/0271.html
  <source>Glen Daniels</source>
  <resolution>This issue is closed on the basis that the open-ended
  extensibility model we have adopted enables the description of
  arbitrary message exchange patterns. June 11, 2002 (at face-to-face

Any objections?

Received on Thursday, 20 June 2002 11:05:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:24 UTC