- 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