Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [soapbuilders] Re: alternative transports

Expand Messages
  • Simon Fell
    ... I ve been working from your proposal in rpc-jig[1]. Looking through the jabber docs, it appears that implies a request/response exchange [even though
    Message 1 of 13 , Nov 2, 2001
      On Fri, 02 Nov 2001 11:00:25 -0000, in soap you wrote:

      >--- In soapbuilders@y..., Simon Fell <soap@z...> wrote:
      >> Thanks for the pointers, reading over them now. I would see
      >supporting
      >> one way async & multi-hop scenario's to be critical long term.
      >
      >Hi Simon
      >
      >Yes indeed, it looks that way is going to be quite interesting. Until
      >now, the SOAP-over-Jabber experiments have seemed pretty much to be
      >request/response style. If you (or anyone else on this list! :-) have
      >any thoughts or wishes etc - especially those that have already used
      >one-way async and multi-hop messages - please don't hesitate to let
      >the rpc-jig [1] list know, as all input and experience is welcome.
      >
      >[That said, I think using a simple :x: based attachment to a Jabber
      ><message/> element is probably the right way to go for these types,
      >being the most generic and therefore the most flexible...]
      >
      >Kind regards
      >DJ (sporadic 'net connection at the moment)

      I've been working from your proposal in rpc-jig[1]. Looking through
      the jabber docs, it appears that <iq> implies a request/response
      exchange [even though its over an async transport], is that correct ?
      if so using <message> might be better, but that would probably need an
      additional value for the type attribute defining.

      Cheers
      Simon

      [1]
      http://mailman.jabber.org/pipermail/rpc-jig/2001-October/000016.html
    • dj.adams@gmx.net
      ... correct ? ... an ... Hi Simon You re right, and indeed later in the thread you pointed to on the RPC-JIG mailing list, I (and others) seemed to agree that
      Message 2 of 13 , Nov 5, 2001
        > I've been working from your proposal in rpc-jig[1]. Looking through
        > the jabber docs, it appears that <iq> implies a request/response
        > exchange [even though its over an async transport], is that
        correct ?
        > if so using <message> might be better, but that would probably need
        an
        > additional value for the type attribute defining.

        Hi Simon

        You're right, and indeed later in the thread you pointed to on the
        RPC-JIG mailing list, I (and others) seemed to agree that the
        <message/> element could be used as well [1]. That is to say, the IQ
        model is appropriate for request/response usages of SOAP, and the
        message model is appropriate for the async, one-way and multi-hop
        usages. There's no reason why we need to restrict ourselves to just
        one Jabber element. I think I drew a parallel somewhere in that
        thread to the split-personality of many of the standard jabber:
        namespaces, e.g. jabber:x:oob and jabber:iq:oob.

        May I humbly suggest we continue this on the RPC-JIG list, so as not
        to lose focus or messages?

        Thanks, and thanks for your input
        dj

        [1] http://mailman.jabber.org/pipermail/rpc-jig/2001-
        October/000045.html
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.