Why protocol MEPs are good for you

I believe that a "protocol level" MEP as described in [1] is a good
thing because it enables: 

 

1) bindings to be written without knowledge of wsdl, policy, etc.  I
show a SOAP 1.1 one-way binding at [2] and a SOAP 1.2 request/response +
one way binding at [1] and 

 

2) description languages to talk about messages without talking about
underlying protocols.  The WSDL 2.0 ed copy spec has a section that
shows how WSDL uses the SOAP 1.2 request-response MEP [3].  I have
offered a defunct proposal for how the WS-A UsingAddressing Async
Extension could be written to use the protocol mep or the soap meps[4]
in section 3.1.1.  Some worthy text from [4] that shows either the
protocol mep or soap mep to highlight.

 

When wsaw:Async attribute has this value, then the
response message MAY be the response part (aka
http://www.w3.org/2004/12/ws-addr/mep/ResponseMessage or
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/InboundMessage) of a
request-optional-response or request-response MEP or the response
message MAY be the request part (aka
http://www.w3.org/2004/12/ws-addr/mep/RequestMessage or
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/OutboundMessage) of a separate

request-optional response or request MEP.

 

Without an MEP, you have to write WSDL and WSDL extensions like WS-A to
be protocol specific, such as [5] first attachment section 3.1.2

 

Cheers,

Dave

 

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jul/att-001
0/ws-addr-soapadjuncts-simplemeps_httpbinding.html

[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Nov/0037.ht
ml

[3]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.
html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#wsdl-mep-soap-mep

[4]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Nov/0014.ht
ml

[5]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Nov/0084.ht
ml