- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 21:37:18 -0400
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: chris.ferris@sun.com, henrikn@microsoft.com, john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com, marc.hadley@uk.sun.com, martin.gudgin@btconnect.com, moreau@crf.canon.fr, skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Mark Baker writes: >>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. The SOAP MEP makes very clear that the SOAP response is just that, the response to SOAP processing. I believe that our HTTP binding only handles the case where the response is returned reasonably promptly, on the still-open connection. If we had a separate MEP called "long running req/resp", then we could implement that via a different or enhanced HTTP binding (or email, or various business message queuing systems, etc.). We could use 202 as you suggest for http, but would also have to specify how the eventual real response would get back 3 months later. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 21:56:33 UTC