Re: Jabber Binding Supports Request/Response - existence proof of shared MEPs

[email protected]
Newsgroups gmane.text.xml.distributed
Message-ID <OFD9C710B9.1CF9AAC6-ON852570DF.00728B88-852570DF.0072B8FF@lotus.com>
Thanks Peter!  I almost sent you an explicit cc: on this, but didn't want 
to bother you with details of our day to day squabbling about MEPs.   Was 
going to ask your opinion shortly in any case, but hadn't realized you 
were on the list.  So much the better, thanks for weighing in.

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>
12/22/2005 03:13 PM
 
        To:     [email protected]
        cc:     [email protected]
        Subject:        Re: Jabber Binding Supports Request/Response - 
existence proof of shared MEPs


[email protected] wrote:
> In recent discussions, some people have asserted that one measure of 
> benefit of having MEPs in SOAP is whether we've seen more than one 
binding 
> that supports the same MEP.  I just checked and the draft Jabber binding 

> does, as I thought, support 
> http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/request-response/, the same 
> Request/Response pattern that's supported by our standard HTTP binding. 
> See [1].  Presumably, users will get the benefit of having a high degree 

> of similarity in the interfaces needed to support HTTP and Jabber. 

Yes, that seems like a good thing.

> Interestingly, this also suggests that we'll have to coordinate with the 

> Jabber folks if we make the response envelope optional, drop the 
> Request/Response MEP entirely, etc. as their draft specification clearly 

> depends on our MEP in its current form. 

The Jabber folks are here, so you don't have far to look. :-)

> Anyway, Jabber's use of our MEP reinforces my feelings that (a) MEPs as 
we 
> have them in SOAP are a good thing and practical to reuse and (b) that 
> others have dependencies on these aspects of our Recommendation and we 
> should proceed with great caution in making any changes.

Agreed on both counts.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.