- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:24:39 -0500
- To: "S. Alexander Jacobson" <alex@vo.com>
- CC: xml-dist-app <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Let me be explicitly clear then. What I meant by (say a Servlet or CGI) was not meant to infer the Servlet or CGI implementation layer, but an *instance* of a Servlet or CGI that in effect *is* the implementation of the binding. Thus, neither the Servlet nor CGI *implementation* need understand the semantics inferred, just the layer which binds the protocol (HTTP) to the SOAP node. Cheers, Chris S. Alexander Jacobson wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Christopher Ferris wrote: > >>However, if it is the responsibility of >>the layer above the HTTP processing (say a servlet or CGI) >>that is effectively the implementation of the HTTP binding, >>that is responsible for interpretation of the new header, >>and responsible for returning an HTTP 204 No Content response >>to the sender. That (IMO) would be perfectly acceptable. >> > > To be HTTP correct, the CGI/Servlet implementation > would need to know enough about the semantics of > the underlying operation to know whether to send > a "202 Accepted" or a "204 No Content" response. > > I think the choices are: > 1. have the envelope give a hint to the recipient > 2. have SOAP methods only return one or the other > (the response for certain SOAP methods is > preset when the user installs them in the > CGI implementaiton) > 3. give the SOAP methods excessive awareness of > HTTP. > 4. only return 204 if the response times out and > it is clearly an asynch response (ugly!) > 5....? > > None of these seem particularly elegant, but I > would choose #2. > > -Alex- > ___________________________________________________________________ > S. Alexander Jacobson i2x Media > 1-212-787-1914 voice 1-603-288-1280 fax > > >
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 10:26:02 UTC