Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/03/2006 08:51:51 AM:
> On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 01:45 -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > Sanjiva, > > > > Can you please chime in on the problem itself [1]? Maybe if we > > concentrate on the problem in question rather than dissect the > > specific solution we will be better off? > > Interesting use-case. Is this the scenario that motivated David's > proposal? David? > Yes, this is the scenario I'd like to support. > Does the WS-Addr spec have anything to say about whether its legit to do > this kinda stuff? The scenario is that the response message (containing > a RelatesTo with @relationshipType=wsa:Response) is being used as an > invocation message for someone else. Didn't the test suite have some > stuff that checked proper handling of RelatesTo? The spec doesn't say anything about this specific scenario though quite what the point of separate ReplyTo and FaultTo EPRs is if this isn't supported escapes me. The other thing to note is that the reply relationship type is defined very broadly, just defining the semantic and not tieing it to a particular MEP. Because it isn't explicitly mentioned in the spec it didn't appear in the test suite. David --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
