Re: Revised Asynch Binding

Hi JJ,

I agree he's using it twice in sequence. However, the way I read the
SOAP/HTTP binding it very clearly states that the response message
of the SOAP MEP comes in the HTTP response. Are you saying that is
not the case?

In any case, I find it surprising that people will consider using
two SOAP MEPs the natural solution to this when the approach of a
single SOAP MEP bound differently to HTTP works just fine. That's
*precisely* the reason SOAP separated the protocol MEPs from how
they're bound to transport (or, ahem, transfer) protocols AFAIK!


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: Revised Asynch Binding

> Hi Sanjiva,
> The way I was reading Dave's proposal, he was not hijacking the current
> SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding, but using it twice "in sequence", to provide the
> 2-MEP equivalent. Maybe he meant something else? I don't want to put
> words in his mouth.
> JJ.
> Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> >>I am a bit uneasy about creating new (SOAP) bindings uncesserily. In
> >>certain circumstances, I agree with Sanjiva, this is unavoidable.
> >>However, for simpler cases, I like Dave's idea of essentially providing
> >>a "MEP scripting language". This helps reuse existing bindings when
> >>applicable.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >But at what price? I don't like the price of 2 SOAP-MEPs for one
> >WSDL MEP. Furthermore, Dave's doing at best a liberal reading of
> >SOAP1.2 and, at worst a full-scale violation of it to achieve the
> >2 SOAP-MEP thing using the current SOAP-HTTP binding.
> >
> >

Received on Monday, 12 July 2004 04:29:44 UTC