W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2002

Re: One-way messaging in SOAP 1.2

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
Message-ID: <OF3162A8D9.E221AA59-ON80256B43.004B96F5@portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>

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.

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                              
                    01/16/2002 11:18                                                                                


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
   (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 ?

Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 09:09:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:45 UTC