- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:33:07 -0500
- To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Patrick R. McManus" <mcmanus@datapower.com>, "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
David Orchard writes: > More to the point, I don't see why we'd need an request-optional- > soap-response mep AND a f-a-f mep where f-a-f is interpreted as you > suggested on the server. ...because when we implement SOAP on true FAF transports like UDP, and maybe some flavors of Jabber (I have to go back and look at that) we'll want the true FAF MEP and probably not the Req/Resp (I.e. because Req/Resp, as we keep reminding ourselves, requires the transport to know how to address responses, which in general UDP does not provide.) FAF is the natural MEP and should be used on one-way transports; Req/Resp and/or Response-only (which is more properly named Request/ResponseWithEnvelopeInResponseOnly) are the natural MEPs and should be used on Request/Response protocols like HTTP. -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 27 January 2006 01:33:22 UTC