- From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 01:31:02 -0400
- To: "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
- Message-id: <44F3D116.7080204@tibco.com>
Attached please find a sketch of a binding of the one-way MEP to email,
taking the existing email binding note as a starting point. As one
would hope, the meat of it is in the mapping between properties and
email content (Table 2) and in the mapping of error conditions to SOAP
faults (which I've completely punted -- but then am I required to do
anything?).
Random notes taken along the way:
* The original refers to the RequestingSOAPNode and
RespondingSOAPNode roles. We don't define these.
* Hmm ... what if a given node gets the sent email twice? This is a
general issue. I don't think we specifically mention it in the
MEP spec yet.
* It looks like it might be better to have a single Message
property, instantiated at each node, rather than separate
InboundMessage and OutboundMessage properties, with only one or
the other instantiated at a given node. Most of Table 2 is
identical for sender and receiver. This is the only exception.
* The original binding treats SOAP nodes as being attached to email
interfaces. This seems good and right, and I follow it. But I
note that a given email interface need not have a SOAP node
attached to it, in which case a message sent will normally reach a
receiver, but not a SOAP node. For that matter, there could be
multiple SOAP nodes attached to a given email interface and
address (or to the same address at different interfaces, depending
on what we mean by an email interface). In such cases, a single
message sent to a single address will still reach multiple SOAP nodes.
* Goodness, those state tables took up a lot of room.
Attachments
- text/html attachment: one-way-email.htm
Received on Tuesday, 29 August 2006 05:31:17 UTC