[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [business-transaction] SOAP Bindings Stuff
From the start I think we've all pretty much agreed that BTP should be protocol agnostic. If I want to define a carrier-pidgeon mapping then it'll work just as well as, say, SOAP, and won't require changes to the message set. However, when I say "protocol agnostic" I mean that if there is a binding of BTP to X (where X could be SOAP RPC, SOAP Messages, Carrier-Pidgeon) then all participants within a specific BTP will use that protocol binding. I get the impression (rightly or wrongly) that some people might like participants within a single business transaction to use any-and-all mappings if they are present and in any combination. So, for example, some participants may be communicating via messages, while others use RPC, and still others use pidgeon at the same time. It is this requirement that seems to hindge the RPC versus messages debate (true method calls versus doWork options). If people want a SOAP RPC binding and a SOAP message binding then we shouldn't be looking at making the two interoperate. We can always add bridges later. Mark. ---------------------------------------------- Dr. Mark Little Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs Email: mark@arjuna.com | mark_little@hp.com Phone: +44 191 2064538 Fax : +44 191 2064203
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC