Re: Action Item - Part I: WSRX and MEP signaling on the wire
David Hull <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.distributed |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I think the wording you give is better. The original wording is correct strictly from a SOAP point of view, emphasizing that a SOAP envelope might not come back (because what comes back isn't SOAP). From the point of view that MEPs are trying to abstract properties of the underlying transport, it seems better to emphasize (as you do) that something always goes out and something always comes back. [email protected] wrote: >David Hull writes: > > > >>The SOAP request-(optional-)response MEP describes a SOAP message going >> >> >out and something SOAPy optionally coming back. > >I think that needs a crucial but small rewording to: > >"The SOAP request-(optional-)response MEP describes a SOAP message going >out and something (optionally SOAPy) coming back." > >The MEP we're about to draft invariably sends something back. Whether or >not it's "SOAPy" depends on the circumstance. Right? > >Noah > >-------------------------------------- >Noah Mendelsohn >IBM Corporation >One Rogers Street >Cambridge, MA 02142 >1-617-693-4036 >-------------------------------------- > > > > > > >