- From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:19:53 +0100
- To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Looks good, a couple of editorial nits: 7.4.1.2 in table, statename should be requesting not waiting. 7.4.2.1 in table, statename should be init not receiving. 7.4.2.3 in table, statename should be receiving+sending not responding, same for table caption. Regards, Marc. Williams, Stuart wrote: > I've posted the following (with its attachments) to the W3C public archive > [1]. Those that are interested will find the attachments there. > > Regards > > Stuart > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Apr/0041.html > -- > > Folks, > > At the last TBTF telcon I took the action to see what it would take to > change the request response MEP description so that it could accomodate > temporal overlap between SOAP request and SOAP response. The changes are in > sections 6 and 7 of the attached modified version of part 2 (just those > sections). > > The requesting and responding statemachines remain structurally similar to > each other and have a simmilar appearance to the previous version. However, > the starting state is more clearly marked as are the actions to 'get things > moving'. The changes in section 6 should give a good feel for the > difference. Only the final state (before success or fail) now waits for > transmissions and/or receptions to complete, all other transitions are > driven by the the availability of messages to send or the start of messages > being received (or the failure of the underlying protocol or a local abort > for whatever reason - actually the latter could be a property set in the > MEC, but that is mostly editorial). > > One noticable change is that I split context:CurrentMessage into an > InboundMessage and an OutBoundMessage because of the potential for overlap. > > Most of the 'dense' material in the HTTP binding tables (section 7) is > unchanged, although some tables have changed position. The amendments to the > binding description were pretty straight forward. > > So... the quick way to review this is to consider section 6. If that makes > sense to you, section 7 should not contain any surprises. (There is a chance > I have done this in too much haste... so look out for errors as well). > > This is up for discussion on the TBTF call on Friday. > > Best regards > > Stuart Williams > > -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 07:20:30 UTC