[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrm] Action item for ReplyTo definition
We can say that ABP must be specified even if ack is not requested (because fault has to be received). If and only if ABP = Callback, we need ReplyTo (that's what Sunil pointed out, isn't it?) Junichi Tatemura ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jun Tatemura" <tatemura@ccrl.sj.nec.com> To: <tom@coastin.com>; "Patrick Yee" <kcyee@cecid.hku.hk> Cc: "wsrm" <wsrm@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 11:06 AM Subject: Re: [wsrm] Action item for ReplyTo definition > > I think we need to discuss how Fault should be sent back (Fault Binding Patterns (FBPs)?) before > designing ReplyTo details. > We have defined Ack Binding Patterns (ABP) (Response,Callback,Polling). > If ack is requested, we can assume ABP = FBP. > So, what if ack is not requested? Should we specify FBP (Response, Callback, Polling)? > What about relationship between bindings of application fault messages (MEP?) and > ws-rm fault messages (FBP)? > > Junichi Tatemura
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]