Re: [ws-rx] RE: i082 - Is there a more detailed proposal?

[Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>]

Jacques,

I guess I am very much confused by your
confusion:-) The RM spec says nothing about the term "response message"
as being in any way related to the response
message of a SOAP MEP. There is no mention of SOAP MEPs
in the spec anywhere IIRC. I guess I
am surprised to learn that you thought that.

In fact, IMO, there is no, nor should
there be any, ties between SOAP MEPs and the CS/CSR request
response. If anything, they might be
related to WSDL operations with both an input and an output message. 

<aside>
Of course, there are some who will then
presume that there is a relationship between the WSDL "MEP" and
the SOAP MEP.
That would be a mistake. There is none.
In fact, I would argue that there cannot be one. They are orthogonal
to one another, despite the fact that
at a trivial level, they align with predominant usage of available Web
services
stacks. However, ***this is merely a
coincidence***.

Once you toss in WS-Addressing (or some
other means of addressing) that coincidence disappears altogether.
</aside>

If you want to change "response
message" to "a message sent in response to", I suppose that's
fine. However,
I frankly see no need to do so.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295

Jacques Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com> wrote
on 01/17/2006 08:20:11 PM:

> > a proposed direction rather than a formal proposal 
>  
> Right, we don't have a formal proposal yet.
> We still need to agree on the real meaning we
want to give to 
> "response message" and "request-response pattern".
> Exact places that are of a concern:
> On CDII (Jan 13):        
                     
                     
       
> L237: response message
> L256: response message
> L301: response message
> L316: response message
> L394: response message
> L402: response message
> L611: request-response pattern
>  
> Two ways to go from there:
> (1)     decide that all above expressions
must be understood in a 
> SOAP MEP context, where "response message" actually means
"SOAP 
> response message in a SOAP Request-response MEP". This has some
> consequences on the use of the underlying transport.
> (2)     Decide to not tie CS/CSR and
other request-response ops to 
> any particular SOAP MEP, in the same way as no assumption is made
> about which kind of SOAP MEP is used for carrying messages sent 
> reliably. Then any mention of "the response message" in
the spec is 
> misleading and superfluous. For example, reword L237 as: "...
> responds with a message containing either a <wsrm:
> CreateSequenceResponse> or a CreateSequenceRefused fault."
>  
> I initially suggested (1) which was what the
spec appeared to mean. 
> But I now see some good things in (2). My main issue here is that
we
> need to clearly settle for one way or the other. 
>  
>  
> > I'm concerned with the assumption the proposal
in this issue 
> makes, that req/resp are always used > in the SOAP sense and not
the
> HTTP sense.
>  
> The SOAP sense should suffice, given that this
TC is not concerned 
> with binding the spec to underlying transports. The standard way to
> bind SOAP to HTTP actually leads to the "HTTP sense" of
a req-resp 
> in (1). But is that always what we want? E.g. in case RMS reliably
> sends a sequence of messages over HTTP responses for some reason,
> shouldn't we allow the CS to be also transmitted over an HTTP response?
>              
                     
                     
                   
>  
> Jacques
>  
> 
> From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 4:07 PM
> To: Jacques Durand; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: i082 - Is there a more detailed proposal?
>  
> In reviewing some of the issues up for this weeks
call I'll note 
> that the proposal for i082 seems more like a proposed direction 
> rather than a formal proposal. Will a more formal proposal be 
> available before the call? I'm concerned with the assumption the 
> proposal in this issue makes, that req/resp are always used in the
> SOAP sense and not the HTTP sense. Has anyone done a thorough review
> of the spec to check the uses of these terms to check this?
>  
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i082

>  
> Marc Goodner
> Technical Diplomat
> Microsoft Corporation
> Tel: (425) 703-1903
> Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/mrgoodner/

>