- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:10:50 -0400
- To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Cc: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, henrikn@microsoft.com, john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com, marc.hadley@uk.sun.com, martin.gudgin@btconnect.com, moreau@crf.canon.fr, xml-dist-app@w3.org
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 07:47:58AM -0400, Christopher Ferris wrote: > Maybe it just needs to be clearer as to the nature of the > entity body that MAY appear in the 202 response. It MAY > be a SOAP message detailing for the requester when it might > expect the result to be ready. It MAY be an acknowledgment > message such as might be used for reliable messaging > for purposes of nonrepudiation such as defined by ebXML. I agree. It might also not be a SOAP response. > I would suggest that it NOT be removed just clarified. The problem with not removing it is that there are certain assumptions made by the MEP and HTTP binding with respect to the SOAP processing model. The big one is that if you get a response, that it is a result of the SOAP Envelope being processed. So in order to be able to support a 202 response in this binding, we'd have to create a MEP that exposed the difference between a response that implies the SOAP processing model was obeyed, and another type of response which implies that it was not. I hope you agree that it's a bit late for that! 8-) I apologize to Stuart for not catching this earlier, but I wouldn't have caught it at all if not for Noah's message that prompted me to check how the binding handles 202. MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 09:19:32 UTC