Re: Response envelope optional vs. response optional
Mark Baker <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.distributed |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Anish, On 1/4/06, Anish Karmarkar <[email protected]> wrote: > What I was pushing back on was allowing a 202 (with no entity body) in > HTTP, and still saying that it implements a SOAP req-res MEP (since > there is no SOAP response envelope coming back). It can be called SOAP > req-optional-response or a SOAP-request MEP, but calling it a SOAP > req-res MEP doesn't seem right. It is certainly a different "view of the world" than has been used up 'til now, which probably explains why it "doesn't seem right", but do you have any concrete issues with it? IMO, this is the only view of the relationship of MEPs and protocol bindings which is consistent with not just the architecture of the Web, but the architecture of the Internet as a whole, as it treats application protocols as application protocols (e.g.. application protocol responses as application layer responses), not transport protocols. I've also been promoting this view since the early days of XMLP, so hopefully it's not entirely unfamililar. 8-) Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com