- From: John Ibbotson <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:55:34 +0000
- To: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Cc: XML dist app <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>, xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
Marc, This issue is an example of how things get blurred at different levels in a stack, We are considering the contents of a SOAP Envelope, not the transport that moves the message from one point to another. As Jack suggests, a SOAP message can be sent as the contents of an HTTP request, At the transport layer, a 200 response comes back with empty content. Tha response is simply an artifact of the HTTP protocol design. If I use an asynchronous transport (I know some folks may not view it as a transport) such as MQSeries, then I simply PUT a message to a queue and it gets delivered. to the destination. There is no request/response visible at the application layer. I am happy that the SOAP spec supports one-way messages in that there is no mandatory response at the SOAP layer from the ultimate destination. If you think some clarification of this is needed then I support that. This clarification must emphasise the SOAP layer and not complicate it by transport artifacts. John XML Technology and Messaging, IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, Winchester, SO21 2JN Tel: (work) +44 (0)1962 815188 (home) +44 (0)1722 781271 Fax: +44 (0)1962 816898 Notes Id: John Ibbotson/UK/IBM email: john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun. To: XML dist app <xml-dist-app@w3c.org> com> cc: Sent by: Subject: One-way messaging in SOAP 1.2 xml-dist-app-requ est@w3.org 01/16/2002 11:18 AM All, I'd like to raise a new issue: In Part 1, section 5.3 we find: "Every binding specification MUST support the transmission and processing of one-way messages as described in this specification. A binding specification MAY state that it supports additional features, in which case the binding specification MUST provide for maintaining state, performing processing, and transmitting information in a manner consistent with the specification for those features." This paragraph is potentially confusing, either we mean: (i) All bindings must support a one-way MEP, in which case there are two issues: (a) we currently don't define a one way MEP in the specification (b) the HTTP binding we do define doesn't support a one-way MEP or (my reading) (ii) All bindings must at a minimum define how to move a message from one node to another, in which case I would propose that we add a clarification along the lines of "Note, this does not mean that all bindings must support a one way MEP, only that they MUST define how to move a message from one SOAP node to another". Comments ? Regards, Marc.
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 09:09:00 UTC