RE: Issue 130: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed

I think this ties in with my old quest to get the output and output/input
MEPs removed from the spec OR specified in a way that we can have
interoperable implementations.

Supporting Async request/response requires the first service (or operation)
to receive the address on where to send the response.  We can either specify
this as a part of WSDL 2.0 and everyone will implement it the same way (and
interoperate).  Or we can say nothing, and if you want to do it, you will
have to implement something (WS-Addressing?) that not everyone may have.

It makes me sad to say that at this point, saying nothing seems to be the
way to go.

--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of David Orchard
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 1:33 PM
To: Web Services Description
Subject: RE: Issue 130: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed


Without tracking down the reference, I think that I posted a response that
said something like I don't think that any asynch binding requires the
engagement of an addressing/delivery mechanism.  I'm reminded of our
"operation name" discussions on this.  If we don't require the description
of the operation name uniqueness mechanism in the WSDL, then I don't think
that we need to spec the callback mechanism is WSDL.  Certainly something
will have to be there, but that can be done in some other means.  Simply
that there is an expectation of one is sufficient.  If a service provider
does not describe their callback mechanism in some out-of-band, extension,
or f&p form, then it will be a pretty useless service.  Same way if a
service provider can't distinguish between operations on it's end it's
fairly useless.  

Caveat Servico Providemptor?

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 8:09 AM
> To: Web Services Description
> Subject: Issue 130: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed
> 
> 
> 
> [Reviving this thread for the telcon this week.]
> 
> Sanjiva's mail below lays out the proposal on the table, and 
> the primary
> issue with it - that it requires the use of an addressing mechanism,
> presumably an extension engaged in the WSDL and marked required.  Have
> we learned anything new since January?
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> > Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 4:46 PM
> > To: Martin Gudgin; Philippe Le Hegaret; David Orchard
> > Cc: Web Services Description
> > Subject: Re: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed
> > 
> > 
> > "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> writes:
> > > PAOS is slightly different. It has two MEPs, the one I 
> think you are
> > > thinking of works as follows:
> > >
> > > Given nodes A and B:
> > >
> > > 1. node A makes an HTTP GET to node B.
> > > 2. Node B sends a SOAP Request as the HTTP response.
> > > 3. Node A responds with a SOAP response in an HTTP POST to Node B.
> > > 4. Node B responds with some HTTP response ( typically a 
> web page )
> > >
> > > Gudge
> > 
> > I understood what DaveO wanted as:
> > 
> > 1. node A makes an HTTP POST to node B with a SOAP Request and
> >    information on where to POST the HTTP response to
> > 2. node B responds with something like 201 OK
> > 3. later on, node B makes an HTTP POST to node A with a 
> SOAP Response
> > 4. node A responds with something like 201 OK
> > 
> > DaveO??
> > 
> > I like this a lot but unfortunately one needs WS-Addressing or
> something
> > similar to send the "information on where to POST the HTTP response
> to".
> > 
> > Sanjiva.
> > 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 11:26:49 UTC