- From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:11:16 -0400
- To: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Hmm. On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:03:59 -0400 Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org> wrote: > We have decided that the HTTP binding would support all of our MEPs, > except for for robust-in-out and robust-out-in. Never heard of 'em. > The issue is that Part 2 does not define such MEPs AFAICT. We had > problem with those as they may involve 3 messages, but I don't think Two of those listed below have this characteristic. > that Part 2 MEPs have this characteristics, so I think that we want > all of them: > > 2.2.1 In-Only > 2.2.2 Robust In-Only > 2.2.3 In-Out > 2.2.4 In-Optional-Out Uses "message triggers fault", and as a result may have a fault in response to the optional out message. > 2.2.5 Out-Only > 2.2.6 Robust Out-Only > 2.2.7 Out-In > 2.2.8 Out-Optional-In Uses "message triggers fault," and as a result may have a fault in response to the optional in message. Note: it is not acceptable to change the fault propagation ruleset for these MEPs. It is, of course, perfectly feasible to define additional MEPs that use "fault replaces message" with otherwise similar semantics (a bit odd, in my opinion, but certainly doable). "message triggers fault" is generally inappropriate for HTTP, in my opinion, except for the "robust" forms of single-message MEPs (also true of other strongly connection-oriented, client/server protocols). Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Senior Architect TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:11:55 UTC