In a previous message
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=axis-user&m=101430720610385&w=2 no-one
replied about my query regarding primitive transmission types mentioned
in the WSDL spec. I am more interested in HTTP transport, but the
"one-way" and "notification" transmission types seems to acknowledge the
need for asynchronous communication.
As for SOAP binding, my opinion is that it really doesn't matter because
RPC style and Document style messages are merely different ways to
invoke operations on the endpoint, asynchronously or not. The transport
layer should handle any connection maintenance, not the application
layer, or even the SOAP layer.
HTH.
cheers,
Simon
-----Original Message-----
From: Naresh Agarwal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 11:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: SOAP bindings with "Asynchronous" Transport Protocols
Hi
Today, most of the Soap implementations use HTTP for transport
protocol..However, in the near future, we expect more support for
"Asynchronous" transport protocol like SMTP, JMS, BEEP etc.
I have following concern in this regard:
1) Does the "Aynchrony" make sense in "RPC" (encoded) style of SOAP or
it would be only useful for "messaging" (literal) style of SOAP?
2) Are RPC *synchronous* per se, or does it make sense to have RPC
*asynchronous*?
3) What exactly do we want to achieve by using SMTP, JMS, BEEP etc., as
transport mechanism for SOAP?
I would appreciate any comments on the above.
thanks,
regards,
Naresh Agarwal
