- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 05:11:26 -0700
- To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>
- Cc: <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
FYI - the resolution for 227 is at[1] Gudge [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Jul/0093.html > -----Original Message----- > From: Williams, Stuart [mailto:skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com] > Sent: 14 August 2002 12:54 > To: 'Yves Lafon' > Cc: xmlp-comments@w3.org > Subject: RE: resolution of issue 228 > > > > Yves, > > I could be happy with this resolution depending on the actual > resolution of #227. > > I actually prefer the previous text to this replacement > because it is closer to being explicit about what Web Methods > may be used with the exchange patterns we have defined so > far. The resolution text implies a that a degree of judgement > is required on the part of someone (who?) that a given mep > and web method are compatible - I think judgements will > differ in which case this specifies nothing. > > Alternatives are to: > > a) Place the onus on a MEP specification to state what Web > Methods may be used in conjunction with that MEP for those > bindings that provide both Web Method and the given MEP (and > state what Web Method (if any) is used by default). > > b) Place the onus on the Web Method feature specification to > state what MEPs a given Web Method may be use with. > > c) Allow either MEP or Web Method to default in the event of > underspecification in a message exchange context (ie. Web > Method used with unspecified MEP or MEP used with unspecified > Web Method). > > d) Recognise that Web Method and MEP are not orthogonal and > rethink the whole business of MEP and Web Method. > > I think resolution of this issue is in extricably linked to > and subordinate to the resolution of #227. > > Thanks, > > Stuart > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yves Lafon [mailto:ylafon@w3.org] > > Sent: 30 July 2002 20:11 > > To: xmlp-comments@w3.org > > Cc: skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com > > Subject: resolution of issue 228 > > > > > > Stuart, > > During the last f2f, the WG came up with this decision to > > close issue 228 > > [1]: > > > > << > > Replace last paragraph of [2] with "Bindings implementing > this feature > > MUST employee a Message Exchange Pattern with semantics that are > > compatible with the web method selected. For example, > the (link to > > response only) pattern is compatible with GET. > > >> > > > > If you feel that this does not adequately address the issue > that you > > raised, please contact the WG ASAP. > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x228 > > [2] > http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part2-20020626/#webmethods tatemachine -- Yves Lafon - W3C "Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2002 08:12:00 UTC