- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:50:19 -0500
- To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
- Cc: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
David Hull writes: > The "cheese sandwich with no bread" issue is slightly > different. I don't like the idea of defining a generic > "request optional-response" MEP and binding it to a one-way > transport, where we know there will never be a response. I agree completely! It's the application receiving the request that decides whether there will be a response. Let's assume you send a request through the DHOneWayTransportBinding and the application does generate a response. The binding can't do what it's required to do, which is deliver the response. The response envelope is optional only in the sense that the application may say "I'm not sending one". If the application tries, the binding must deliver. Of course, there may be rare cases where you have a very special purpose implementation (e.g. an embedded system running only one application) and you know that the app. will never send a response. In that case, I'd say you don't have to write the code in the binding that you know will never be called. Otherwise, the binding must be capable of sending a response envelope; the app will decide whether to send one. Right? Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2005 00:50:26 UTC