- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:06:34 +0100
- To: Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- CC: "Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, "marc.hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, skw <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, xml-dist-app <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
+1 Noah Mendelsohn wrote: > [...] 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.
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 04:08:26 UTC