Re: Revised Asynch Binding

On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 06:31:30AM +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> I don't think so! Glen/JJM/Gudge/Jack/<any other XMLPers>: What do you
> think?

As an ex-XMLPer who worked on the binding, I have to agree with Sanjiva;
it was clear to me at least, that the intent was as he describes.

The HTTP 202 response could be used to do what the WG needs in terms of
treating the SOAP/HTTP response as an intermediate response, and in fact
the spec specifically calls it out as something that could be supported
... but with a new MEP;

  "Such alternate bindings MAY therefore make use of HTTP features and
   status codes not required for this binding. For example, another
   binding might provide for a 202 or 204 HTTP response status to be
   returned in response to an HTTP POST or PUT (e.g. a one-way "push"
   MEP with confirmation)."

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.

  Seeking work on large scale application/data integration projects
  and/or the enabling infrastructure for same.

Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2004 20:55:02 UTC