- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:15:27 -0500
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Mark Baker writes: >> Sweet, sweet irony. 8-) Or maybe a good example of keeping it simple. Nothing prevents anyone from publishing a specification for a different/enhanced HTTP binding that provides richer features and more complex MEPs, which I believe this use case to be. Basing core interop on simple request/response seems to me to be a good 80/20 point, not an oversight. I have no problem with someone doing another binding aimed more at HTTP exploitation, if there's user demand. I do think there is a question about about how any application-level response is modeled. It's one thing to have an acknowledged one-way transmission, which is what my naive understanding says you get with a 202. It's another to have the response delivered through another connection, through addressing that has to be worked out, etc. The key thing that a request/response MEP gives you, IMO, is that the response is implicitly addressed to the requester. Usually there is also some sharing of connection infrastructure, particularly in the case of a short-lived request/response. That's what we're modelling with the existing HTTP binding and I think it's a good 80/20 point. -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 -------------------------------------- Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> 11/12/2004 04:11 PM To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com cc: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, xml-dist-app@w3.org Subject: Re: Seeking clarification about the use of the HTTP binding On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 02:47:01PM -0500, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > Hmm. So an interesting question is whether the HTTP binding ever sends a > 202. Ah, good point. It's unfortunate we (XMLP) chose to declare the state transition on "200" rather than "2xx", but IIRC, there was considerable debate about this point, as those promoting "protocol independence" feared that exposing too much of HTTP to the application was a bad idea. Support for 2xx used to be there[1], but was removed and replaced by [2] as a result (IIRC). Sweet, sweet irony. 8-) [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part2-20011217/#NFDC [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-soap12-part2-20030507/#httpoptionality Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 21:16:47 UTC