- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 22:18:48 -0400
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>, John Ibbotson <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>, Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@uk.sun.com>, Martin Gudgin <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>, moreau@crf.canon.fr, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Noah, On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 08:08:20PM -0400, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > I can live with "request-response". > > Actually, one of the hidden assumptions in our use of this is that it is a > reasonably rapid request/response. If I'm placing an order and expecting > a response in 3 months, this isnt' the one to use (or certainly the HTTP > binding won't be happy.) So, I'm a bit tempted to suggest something along > the lines of "rapid-request-response", "request-with-immediate-response", > or some such. One day, we'll need a different pattern (or features to > distinguish), long running from short running, IMO. Again, I can live > with "request-response". Well, HTTP won't have a problem with a 3-month duration transaction if the service uses the 202 (Accepted) response code. And that brings up an issue with the "request-response" name; when using the default binding, the response can actually be a response to the "acceptance" of the message. I don't think that means we need a new name, but I do think that we should point out that a "response" isn't always the result of processing. MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 22:25:22 UTC