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

Re: One-way messaging in SOAP 1.2

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:26:42 -0500
Message-ID: <3C472572.3040202@sun.com>
To: Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
CC: "marc.hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, skw <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, xml-dist-app <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Yes, that would be a sensible approach.
I started to say that we could define YAHH
(yet another HTTP Header) but then decided not
to go that route.

However, it is different than the SOAPAction header
in that it has specific meaning exclusively in the
HTTP transport binding context and needn't be
carried across binding boundaries, so in retrospect,
I think I'm okay with this approach.

I also like the addition to the BF that states that
a binding MUST specify the means by which the MEP
is made known to the recipient binding layer.



Noah Mendelsohn wrote:

> Chris Ferris suggests (regarding how to identify a one way message from a 
> request expecting response):
>>>Well, I guess it could be either a 
>>>separate binding in which case it 
>>>could be bound to a specific URI 
>>>endpoint.  Or, it could be expressed 
>>>in terms of SOAP header block
>>>that identified the MEP.
> Those are options.  Why not do it this way:
> * In the binding framework, state that:  "Binding specifications that 
> support more than one MEP MUST specify the means by which the recipient of 
> a message can determine the MEP being used.
> * In the HTTP binding state:  "This binding specification provides the 
> following means for distinguishing use of the one way MEP from requests 
> send using the Request/Response MEP:
> - A SOAPMessagePattern: HTTP header is defined with the values 'OneWay' or 
> 'RequestResponse' (perhaps these should be URI's for extensibility?)
> - The MEP MAY be implicit in the URI used to deliver the message
> - In situations where more than one MEP is used in conjunction with a 
> single destination address, the SOAPMessagePattern HTTP header MUST be 
> used to identify the MEP.
> We could instead go with your suggestion that HTTP depend on a header in 
> the envelope.  I'm nervous that you don't really want to parse the XML 
> before making the determination.  I'm also a bit nervous about more HTTP 
> headers, but on balance I think we need something outside the envelope.
> In any case, I really do think the framework should make it the 
> responsibility of the binding to convey the MEP in use (explicitly or 
> implictly -- for example, if a binding only supports one MEP, then there 
> is no need to send anything with the message).  What do you think about this approach?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2002 14:28:25 UTC

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