Re: Response envelope optional vs. response optional

Anish,

On 1/4/06, Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> wrote:
> What I was pushing back on was allowing a 202 (with no entity body) in
> HTTP, and still saying that it implements a SOAP req-res MEP (since
> there is no SOAP response envelope coming back). It can be called SOAP
> req-optional-response or a SOAP-request MEP, but calling it a SOAP
> req-res MEP doesn't seem right.

It is certainly a different "view of the world" than has been used up
'til now, which probably explains why it "doesn't seem right", but do
you have any concrete issues with it?

IMO, this is the only view of the relationship of MEPs and protocol
bindings which is consistent with not just the architecture of the
Web, but the architecture of the Internet as a whole, as it treats
application protocols as application protocols (e.g.. application
protocol responses as application layer responses), not transport
protocols.  I've also been promoting this view since the early days of
XMLP, so hopefully it's not entirely unfamililar. 8-)

Mark.
--
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com

Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2006 13:32:49 UTC