Re: ROR proposal issue #1 (aka SC1)

On 4/4/06, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark Baker writes:
>
> > Issue: Think it's perfectly fine if a SOAP response is returned
> > on a 202 response. What's most important to indicate, I believe,
> > is that because of the semantics of 202, that any SOAP envelope
> > would not represent the results of processing the inbound SOAP
> > message.  It only indicates an intermediate result, like an ack.
>
> I'm a little surprised by how you phrased this.  I think we're agreed that
> a 202 certainly indicates that the response does not denote >completion<
> of processing of the request, and indeed in general a 202 is by reading
> silent as to whether any processing has been started or attempted.  So far
> so good.  What surprises me is that your text can be read as insisting
> that any response have nothing to do with the message in question, and I
> don't read the HTTP RFC that way.  My impression is that any ack or the
> like should specifically be in relation to the request received. Do you
> agree?

Yes, I agree.  That comment was sent many weeks ago, before discussion
of partial processing began, so my phrasing didn't take into account
the difference between incomplete processing and no processing.

Mark.
--
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca