RE: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility
"Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <[email protected]> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:08:32 -0600
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.services.ws-arch |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01624ACD@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net> |
Isn't that what Chris Ferris' "Definition #1" does? -----Original Message----- From: Champion, Mike [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:12 AM To: '[email protected] ' Subject: RE: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility > -----Original Message----- > From: Geoff Arnold [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:59 AM > To: '[email protected] ' > Subject: Re: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility > > > > +1. And we need to be consistent with this when [if] we decide to > define "synchronous" and "asynchronous"..... > Could you elaborate? Maybe you mean that the definition of synch/asynch should be independent of the protocol? I think that would help (I'm warming to the synch/asynch topic at long last!). Perhaps if we defined synch/asynch at the level of MEPs rather than protocol-level messages (not to mention implementation details such as "blocking") we might get some agreement. >