RE: Revised Asynch Binding

Even if we are currently only talking in abstract terms about the
capabilities needed to support asynchronous messaging (since we cannot
refer to a concrete established standard), I suggest that we explicitly
mention in our wording both the concept of addressing and the concept of
correlation/reference, given the fact that they are both essential
components of asynchronous messaging. 

If the industry settles on WS-Addressing and/or WS-MD, all the better:
both concepts are already supported in those two specs.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> [] On Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 10:05 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Revised Asynch Binding
> "Ugo Corda" <> writes:
> > 
> > Isn't a messageID also required to correlate the request and the 
> > response, since they cannot be correlated by being on the same 
> > channel? Both WS-Address and WS-MD have the capability of carrying 
> > such an ID, but the two concepts are orthogonal and other 
> addressing 
> > mechanism might not include a messageID capability.
> > 
> > Ugo
> It certainly may be- and if you're using WS-Addressing you 
> can deal with that by putting the message ID in the ReplyTo 
> EPR .. that way it'll be there when the reply comes and 
> you'll know what its about. (There's the RelatesTo property 
> too.) If another 
> addressing mechanism doesn't support such a feature then its 
> pretty much busted IMO.
> In any case, this is all hooks we're putting to avoid a 
> political problem at this time IMO. For the success of the 
> Web services platform, it is ABSOLUTELY critical that there 
> be one and only one addressing/referenceing/whatchamacallit 
> standard. Until we get there everything is and will be broken.
> As far as WSDL is concerned, if we can create a solution that 
> can work with that standard then we're in business. In the meantime, 
> it better work with the current bevvy of candidates too.
> Sanjiva.

Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2004 13:29:05 UTC