Re: FW: [wsi_wsbasic] RE: Call-back scenario

I've already addressed the question on the ws-i list.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: [email protected]
phone: +1 508 234 3624

[email protected] wrote on 08/15/2002 01:43:39 PM:

> 
> FYI. Here is a question raised within the WS-I Basic Profile and 
directed to
> the WSAWG.
> 
> Ugo
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jorgen Thelin [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 10:37 AM
> To: WS-I WS Basic Profile Mailing List
> Subject: [wsi_wsbasic] RE: Call-back scenario
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone closely involved with the W3C Web Services Architecture
> group comment on the intent in the scenario document quoted below on
> exactly whether "SOAP Handlers" are intended to be application-specific
> code rather then standard "infrastructure" code?
> 
> Certainly that is the way it looks to me from the diagram in section
> S070 quoted below, but the associated W3C Glossary is somewhat vague on
> this point.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/06/wd-wsa-gloss-20020605.html
> SOAP handler
> An SOAP handler is responsible for processing SOAP Blocks targeted at it
> according to any rules defined in the corresponding SOAP module.
> 
> 
> I may be in danger of labouring the point here, but to me this all
> points to the Basic Profile largely concentrating on the "SOAP
> Processor" blocks in the W3C diagrams - i.e. the bits below the blue
> line on the diagrams.  I realise this is possible a gross
> over-simplification, but this again points me to the conclusion that the
> handling of correlation headers is in the "application" layer, not the
> "Basic Profile" layer.
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve Jenisch [mailto:[email protected]] 
> > Sent: 15 August 2002 18:04
> > To: WS-I WS Basic Profile Mailing List
> > Subject: [wsi_wsbasic] RE: Call-back scenario
> > 
> > 
> > If the w3c async architecture usage scenario - 
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-ws-arch-scenarios-20020730/#S070 
> > - meets our needs, why don't we just adopt it and move on?
> > 
> > 
> > Steve
> > 
>