W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws@w3.org > April 2002

Re: SOAP bindings with "Asynchronous" protocols

From: Wilfredo Sanchez <wsanchez@KnowNow.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 14:22:28 -0500 (EST)
Cc: <www-ws@w3.org>
To: "Naresh Agarwal" <nagarwal@in.firstrain.com>
Message-Id: <AAA43CF4-45A5-11D6-A1E9-003065F8924C@KnowNow.com>

   KnowNow uses HTTP as a asynchronous transport.  Our event router uses 
async publish/subscribe semantics and speaks HTTP (natively, not as a 
bolt-on feature).  We recently wrote an RPC services-oriented layer on 
top of the pub/sub layer which can be both synchronous or async (using a 
callback).  It doesn't do SOAP encodings, though SOAP support is a 
natural next step which we're working on.  The lightweight service works 
in Java and JavaScript (yes, you can implement your server side in a 
browser if you are so inclined):


   The JavaScript version doesn't support writing synchronous clients, 
because JavaScript doesn't let you block on the reply.  Here's the 
sample client code in Java:



On Friday, March 8, 2002, at 03:19  AM, Naresh Agarwal wrote:

> Hi
> Today, most of the Soap implementations use HTTP for transport
> protocol..However, in the near future, we expect more support for
> "Asynchronous" transport protocol like SMTP,  JMS, BEEP etc.
> I have following concern in this regard:
> 1) Does the "Aynchrony"  make sense in "RPC" (encoded) style of SOAP or
> it would be only useful for "messaging" (literal) style of  SOAP?
> 2) Are RPC *synchronous* per se, or does it make sense to have RPC
> *asynchronous*?
> 3) What exactly do we want to achieve by using SMTP, JMS, BEEP etc., as
> transport mechanism for SOAP?
> I would appreciate any comments on the above.
> thanks,
> regards,
> Naresh Agarwal
Received on Monday, 1 April 2002 17:27:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:08 UTC