Re: Request-response and addressing
Mark Baker <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.distributed |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
David, On 1/18/06, David Hull <[email protected]> wrote: > To me, this implies that SOAP/HTTP and SOAP/<iq/> should define the > request-response MEP (as they do), but SOAP/<message/>, SOAP/Email, SOAP/UDP > etc. should not. I agree with everything you say, except where you mention SOAP/UDP. I don't see any problem with defining a request/response mechanism on top of UDP, just as I don't see any problem with defining a request/response mechanism on top of TCP (as HTTP does, for example). "Request" and "response" are both application layer concepts, and so are the purview of application protocols; transports know nothing of them (another aspect of the difference between transport and transfer). Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com