- From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:33:32 -0500 (EST)
- To: John Ibbotson <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>
- CC: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
My issue is not so much whether "the SOAP spec supports one-way messages", but whether we are in fact mandating support in every binding for a one way MEP that we don't formally define. I agree that the HTTP binding can be used to support a one-way MEP, I just don't think that we define this very well in the current text. E.g. section 8.3 states that it supports single request-response, nothing more; the detail about HTTP response codes 202 and 204 is in "8.4.1 Single Request-Response Exchanges". In general, I don't think the layering is as clear as it might be - probably because the only instance we have at the moment is a request response MEP over a request response transport. Regards, Marc. John Ibbotson wrote: > 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. > > > > > > -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 09:37:53 UTC