RE: Revised Asynch Binding

I don't think this says that we need a new SOAP MEP to do what I suggest.  I'm not suggesting that we change the verb, make mandatory use of HTTP features, or the response code.  

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Mark Baker
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 5:55 PM
> To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: 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)."
>    -- 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#httpoptionality
> 
> Mark.
> -- 
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
> 
>   Seeking work on large scale application/data integration projects
>   and/or the enabling infrastructure for same.
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 11:23:45 UTC