- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:56:56 -0400
- To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hi Stuart, On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 12:59:45PM +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote: > > 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. > > Nevertheless, there is a causal relationship between request message and > response message. It may not be the last-word on whatever processing is > motivated by the receipt of the request message, and further interactions > may be necessary to 'figure' that out, but that's off in the space of > whatever teh SOAP application is. Definitely. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. > I think an interesting question is whether a response signifies that the > processing described in part 1 section 2 has been (is being) carried out - > even if a consequence of that processing is some deferred opration that may > take some time to complete. Right, that's what I was trying to say. As I just said in my other message, I think it would be good to state up front in the processing model that "process" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as it does for the underlying protocol. MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 13:56:03 UTC