- From: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:32:32 -0700
- To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Cc: Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>, "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "'Web Services Description'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <40DAF410.8060905@oracle.com>
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: >Same here; there is nothing called an "asynch" pattern IMO. As >you Jonathan noted nothing precludes one from doing In-Out with >asynch stuff .. in fact the use of WS-Addressing ReplyTo, for >example, already allows that. > > So does WS-Message Delivery [1]. We are in favor of addressing this issue in a working group which is chartered to focus on addressing. --umit [1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-ws-messagedelivery-20040426/ >Sanjiva. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com> >To: "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>; "'Web Services Description'" ><www-ws-desc@w3.org> >Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 2:20 AM >Subject: RE: Issue 130: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed > > > > >>My vote was to NOT add anything to WSDL 2.0. >> >> >>-- >>Tom Jordahl >>Macromedia Server Development >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 3:00 PM >>To: Sanjiva Weerawarana; Tom Jordahl; David Orchard; Web Services >>Description >>Subject: RE: Issue 130: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed >> >>Let me make sure I understand your +1, and Tom's. Do you agree that we >>should add an async pattern, though note that it requires an extension >>to provide addressing information, or that since we can't provide such >>an addressing mechanism we should not do the pattern at all? >> >>A further question on how this would impact the spec: As I understand it >>the In-Out pattern has nothing that precludes async. I don't think our >>SOAP/HTTP binding itself prohibits this either. So are we talking about >>a new SOAP MEP, a peer of the SOAP Request-Response Message Exchange >>Pattern [1] and it's binding to HTTP [2]? If so that doesn't seem like >>a trivial task, nor one that could or should not be defined outside the >>3-part WSDL spec. >> >>[1] >>http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#singlereqrespmep >>[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#soapinhttp >> >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] >>> >>> >>On >> >> >>>Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana >>>Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 8:53 AM >>>To: Tom Jordahl; 'David Orchard'; 'Web Services Description' >>>Subject: Re: Issue 130: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed >>> >>> >>>+1 .. with sadness, but not for the lack of extra work. >>> >>>Sanjiva. >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com> >>>To: "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>; "'Web Services Description'" >>><www-ws-desc@w3.org> >>>Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 9:26 PM >>>Subject: 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > > > > -- Umit Yalcinalp Consulting Member of Technical Staff ORACLE Phone: +1 650 607 6154 Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 11:41:04 UTC