- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:03:14 -0700
- To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
That's right. twice in sequence. Cheers, Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of Jean-Jacques Moreau > Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 12:24 AM > To: Sanjiva Weerawarana > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org > 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 12:03:26 UTC