CARVIEW |
Select Language
HTTP/2 200
date: Thu, 09 Oct 2025 01:03:54 GMT
content-type: text/html
content-encoding: gzip
last-modified: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 23:26:52 GMT
cache-control: max-age=2592000, public
expires: Sat, 08 Nov 2025 01:03:54 GMT
vary: Accept-Encoding
access-control-allow-origin: *
x-request-id: 98b9f5f6a8c6c190
strict-transport-security: max-age=15552015; preload
x-frame-options: deny
x-xss-protection: 1; mode=block
cf-cache-status: MISS
set-cookie: __cf_bm=Uz1Fw5JsGeZUX.RUqQ9KuOwr_CLnItpKvtOb_p1go8A-1759971834-1.0.1.1-iY1xmlIZlZNkLDyGIDPTFE5ZisnNrO3benZZbabNkt80rJLnjhFhR7B.atpZSr7yEafeSqp49YaviYMFyQFWrtVPI0VinQygjA5zTkGyqSc; path=/; expires=Thu, 09-Oct-25 01:33:54 GMT; domain=.w3.org; HttpOnly; Secure; SameSite=None
server: cloudflare
cf-ray: 98b9f5f6a8c6c190-BLR
alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=86400
Issue 21: HTTP binding does not support out first MEPs from Hugo Haas on 2004-12-10 (www-ws-desc@w3.org from December 2004)
Issue 21: HTTP binding does not support out first MEPs
- From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 16:24:56 -0800
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20041210002456.GA2846@w3.org>
Hi. I am afraid that I am going to reopen an issue (issue 21[1]), but this is with additional information as I was implementing the resolution in Part 3. We took the decision that the HTTP binding supports out-message first MEPs, saying that the service could initiate the HTTP request, if it knew where to do so somehow. Some people at the last F2F pointed out that this "somehow" was an interoperability issue. Actually, I think that it is not "somehow" that this is communicated. The spec clearly says that the HTTP Request URI is built from @location on a binding operation and @address on an endpoint URI. What that means is that the Request URI that a service would use for this request is well-known and communicated in a standard way: in the WSDL document itself. A (pseudo) example: <description> <interface> <operation pattern="out-in"> <output/> <input/> </operation> </interface> <binding type="HTTP"> <operation location="https://myclient.example/"/> </binding> <service> <endpoint address="https://myservice.example/"/> </service> </description> Here, the service does an HTTP request to https://myclient.example/ and gets a reply from the client. The downside is that it is completely static. I have mixed feelings about the usefulness of this, and this changes the text that we agreed to put in the spec, so I think that the WG should consider this (forced) change of plan. Cheers, Hugo 1. https://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC21 -- Hugo Haas - W3C mailto:hugo@w3.org - https://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Friday, 10 December 2004 00:24:57 UTC