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

Re: One-way messaging in SOAP 1.2

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 16:18:38 +0100 (MET)
To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0201161612231.20333-100000@tarantula.inria.fr>
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Christopher Ferris wrote:

> Hmmm, Marc raises an interesting question/issue.
> We probably do need to be a bit more clear on the
> subtle distinction between a transport-mep and an mep
> (which is the application view of an mep). When
> we say that one-way mep is required, do we mean
> mep or transport-mep? It would seem to me that we mean
> mep in this case, no? a one-way tmep may not

I read it as mep and not transport mep, mep are described at the SOAP
level, then the binding has to implement it with its own transport-mep,
but it only a binding problem.

> Of course, it would seem to me that the FSM description of
> the HTTP binding would need to be reflective of use of the
> one-way mep as well, at least to indicate that a 202 would
> be expected as the result, etc.

In the case of one way MEP using HTTP, the reply will be discarded, unless
we know where to send faults.

> NB, separate issue for editors: there seems to be an error here
> and elsewhere in the part2 spec, the single-request-response
> tmep URI shouldn't belong to the domain www.example.com, but rather
> to the w3c.org domain, no? Isn't the HTTP binding intended to be
> normative?

The fact that a URI of an example is in the example.com domain or w3c.org
domain don't change the normative/non-normative of the section, the
constraint being that all URI in w3.org should be deferencable.

Yves Lafon - W3C
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 10:18:42 UTC

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