W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > January 2003

Re: Solicit-Response MEP (abstract output-input MEP)

From: Amelia A. Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:34:22 -0500
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-Id: <20030120103422.21b5dad8.alewis@tibco.com>

On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:54:35 +0100
"Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr> wrote:

> I am curious as to what you mean by 3. (starting with "since")?

*shrug*  I spent a couple or three years writing protocol decodes for high-end network sniffers a few years ago.  The states suggested in the Request-Response state machine description seem, in the light of that experience, contrived, awkward, and effectively unimplementable.  A cleaner set of states applicable generally to common networking idioms seems a more effective approach.  In particular, states called something like "sending+receiving" strike me as a bad case of poor definition, or a compromise of some sort backstage.

> Regarding 4., this is then the step which generated the extra 
> properties?

Yup.  Some were also generated early on, because SOAP has them (and they're mentioned in the state descriptions and the like), but they don't need redefinition inside the MEP.  Since this MEP has to be standalone, all of those things also have to be made explicit here.  Termination Condition is specific to Solicit Response, since zero-or-more responses requires that it somehow decide, eventually, to stop.

> Amelia A. Lewis wrote:
> > 3. change the "state" descriptions, since the ones in SOAP R/R are ridiculous (IMO)
> > 4. modify for output-input instead of input-output

Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
Received on Monday, 20 January 2003 10:34:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:27 UTC