Re: Soap Bindlings with Asynchronous Protocols

 Naresh,
 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)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



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