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

Re: Soap Bindlings with Asynchronous Protocols

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 17:15:14 +0100 (CET)
To: Naresh Agarwal <nagarwal@in.firstrain.com>
cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0203071657410.14644-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 here's my view of this. But first, please don't use the terms 
"encoded" and "literal" style of SOAP for these are only terms of 
WSDL and a message doesn't tell you (even indirectly) what style 
(and schema "use") was used in the appropriate WSDL description. 
So my responses:
 1) IMO asynchrony is orthogonal to RPC, although it is usual to 
do RPC synchronously.
 2) In some applications, it is conceivable that a long running 
request/response would be modeled as RPC.
 3) With different transports we want to use these transports' 
properties, like off-line (store and forward) processing of 
email, channeling of BEEP, availability of the various transports 
in various environments etc.
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)

On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Naresh Agarwal wrote:

 > Hi
 > Today, most of the Soap implementations use HTTP for transport
 > protocol..However, in the near future, we expect more support for
 > "Asynchronous" transport protocol like SMTP,  JMS, BEEP etc.
 > I have following concern in this regard:
 > 1) Does the "Aynchrony"  make sense in "RPC" (encoded) style of SOAP or
 > it would be only useful for "messaging" (literal) style of  SOAP?
 > 2) Are RPC *synchronous* per se, or does it make sense to have RPC
 > *asynchronous*?
 > 3) What exactly do we want to achieve by using SMTP, JMS, BEEP etc., as
 > transport mechanism for SOAP?
 > I would appreciate any comments on the above.
 > thanks,
 > regards,
 > Naresh Agarwal
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2002 11:15:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:47 UTC