You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to java-dev@axis.apache.org by Steve Graham <sg...@us.ibm.com> on 2001/02/20 20:47:58 UTC
normal flow
Recall that we had two alternative "models" for service deployment:
targettedWebService (request, pivot, response) and "normal" (just a chain)
models?
I am now of the opinion that we should drop "normal" model. The reason is,
we need to have an mechanism where we can tell which handlers are
processing the request message ,and therefore are candidates to satisfy
mustUnderstand constraints of headers in the request message.
This makes the WSDD simpler, and I think removes a potential confusion area
without making severe restrictions.
sgg
++++++++
Steve Graham
sggraham@us.ibm.com
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
Web Services Architect
Emerging Internet Technologies
++++++++
Re: normal flow
Posted by James Snell <js...@lemoorenet.com>.
+1
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Graham" <sg...@us.ibm.com>
To: <ax...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 11:47 AM
Subject: normal flow
> Recall that we had two alternative "models" for service deployment:
> targettedWebService (request, pivot, response) and "normal" (just a chain)
> models?
> I am now of the opinion that we should drop "normal" model. The reason
is,
> we need to have an mechanism where we can tell which handlers are
> processing the request message ,and therefore are candidates to satisfy
> mustUnderstand constraints of headers in the request message.
>
> This makes the WSDD simpler, and I think removes a potential confusion
area
> without making severe restrictions.
>
> sgg
>
> ++++++++
> Steve Graham
> sggraham@us.ibm.com
> (919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
> Web Services Architect
> Emerging Internet Technologies
> ++++++++
>
Re: normal flow
Posted by Glen Daniels <gd...@allaire.com>.
Also +1.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Graham" <sg...@us.ibm.com>
To: <ax...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 2:47 PM
Subject: normal flow
> Recall that we had two alternative "models" for service deployment:
> targettedWebService (request, pivot, response) and "normal" (just a chain)
> models?
> I am now of the opinion that we should drop "normal" model. The reason
is,
> we need to have an mechanism where we can tell which handlers are
> processing the request message ,and therefore are candidates to satisfy
> mustUnderstand constraints of headers in the request message.
>
> This makes the WSDD simpler, and I think removes a potential confusion
area
> without making severe restrictions.
>
> sgg
>
> ++++++++
> Steve Graham
> sggraham@us.ibm.com
> (919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
> Web Services Architect
> Emerging Internet Technologies
> ++++++++
>
Re: normal flow
Posted by Jacek Kopecky <ja...@idoox.com>.
+1 on this one, too. 8-)
Jacek Kopecky
Idoox
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Steve Graham wrote:
> Recall that we had two alternative "models" for service deployment:
> targettedWebService (request, pivot, response) and "normal" (just a chain)
> models?
> I am now of the opinion that we should drop "normal" model. The reason is,
> we need to have an mechanism where we can tell which handlers are
> processing the request message ,and therefore are candidates to satisfy
> mustUnderstand constraints of headers in the request message.
>
> This makes the WSDD simpler, and I think removes a potential confusion area
> without making severe restrictions.
>
> sgg
>
> ++++++++
> Steve Graham
> sggraham@us.ibm.com
> (919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
> Web Services Architect
> Emerging Internet Technologies
> ++++++++
>