- From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@jabber.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:13:20 -0700
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
- Message-ID: <43AB08E0.20500@jabber.org>
noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > In recent discussions, some people have asserted that one measure of > benefit of having MEPs in SOAP is whether we've seen more than one binding > that supports the same MEP. I just checked and the draft Jabber binding > does, as I thought, support > http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/request-response/, the same > Request/Response pattern that's supported by our standard HTTP binding. > See [1]. Presumably, users will get the benefit of having a high degree > of similarity in the interfaces needed to support HTTP and Jabber. Yes, that seems like a good thing. > Interestingly, this also suggests that we'll have to coordinate with the > Jabber folks if we make the response envelope optional, drop the > Request/Response MEP entirely, etc. as their draft specification clearly > depends on our MEP in its current form. The Jabber folks are here, so you don't have far to look. :-) > Anyway, Jabber's use of our MEP reinforces my feelings that (a) MEPs as we > have them in SOAP are a good thing and practical to reuse and (b) that > others have dependencies on these aspects of our Recommendation and we > should proceed with great caution in making any changes. Agreed on both counts. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre Jabber Software Foundation http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2005 20:13:24 UTC