- From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:03:54 -0400
- To: Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>, 'Jean-Jacques Moreau' <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
First, I took this route and found it to be little hacky. In the first draft, I created new URIs and populated them using default binding rules. Regards, Asir S Vedamuthu asirv at webmethods dot com http://www.webmethods.com/ -----Original Message----- From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 2:23 PM To: 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'; Sanjiva Weerawarana Cc: Asir Vedamuthu; www-ws-desc@w3.org Subject: RE: SOAP 11 Binding: Design Questions We discussed this question at the F2F and decided [1], * not to invent these URIs * and rely on Interface Operation.{message exchange pattern} property. In SOAP 11, there are two implicit MEPs: request response in SOAP 11 spec and one-way in WS-I Basic Profile. That is, http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/in-out = SOAP 11 request response http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/in-only = one-way in WS-I Basic Profile * and, safely ignore {soap mep} property Well, this is my summary. [1] http://www.w3.org/2004/08/03-ws-desc-irc Regards, Asir -----Original Message----- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:41 AM To: Sanjiva Weerawarana Cc: Asir Vedamuthu; www-ws-desc@w3.org Subject: Re: SOAP 11 Binding: Design Questions I'm assuming it would be our WSDL SOAP 1.1 binding that would define it. Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: >I'm confused - which SOAP 1.1 WSDL binding defines a the indicated MEP >URI? > >Sanjiva. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr> >To: "Asir Vedamuthu" <asirv@webmethods.com> >Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org> >Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 10:15 PM >Subject: Re: SOAP 11 Binding: Design Questions > > > > >>If most SOAP stacks are now WS-I compliant (which I assume they are), >>then I think we should support this second MEP. >> >>JJ. >> >>Asir Vedamuthu wrote: >> >> >> >>>Q5. WS-I Basic Profile 1.0 defines a new message exchange pattern: >>> >>> >one-way > > >>>(R2714, R2750, R2727) [4]. SOAP 11 binding provides a URI for this MEP, >>> >>>* http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/soap11/mep/one-way >>>* .. >>> >>>Shall we allow it? >>> >>> >>> >>> > > >
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 23:04:33 UTC