Subject: [BEEPwg] Soap Over Beep Question

From: "Eamon O'Tuathail" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 22:02:34 +0100

Hi,

One has two options with one-way messages:

Either the peer acting as the server knows that it has to respond with a
NUL, or it peeks inside the envelope, and they replies with NUL, before
doing any substantive processing of the envelope contents. The former
scenario is for servers that typically will only accept one-way messages
(e.g. notification-style messages) and the latter would typically be for
servers that accept a mixture of message patterns. 

Eamon

_______________________________________________
BEEPwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.beepcore.org/mailman/listinfo/beepwg

---

From: Gabe Wachob <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:29:37 -0700 (PDT)

IN the case of mixture of patterns (which I think will be the modal case),
the wording *could* be interpreted to allow what you describe below
("peeks inside the envelope").

The way I read "immediately sends back a "NUL" message, before processing
the contents of the envelope" says that you *can't* do what you propose.
The trick is what you mean by the "contents of the envelope". I read this
as "you can't open up the SOAP envelope at all". I think you are
suggesting something else?

	-Gabe

-- 
Gabe Wachob                       [email-masked]
Personal                       http://www.wachob.com
Founder, WiredObjects    http://www.wiredobjects.com

---

From: "Eamon O'Tuathail" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 14:36:03 +0100

Gabe,

If you have no other way of identifying that it is a one-way message,
then you can examine the message, and when you have decided that it
one-way, then respond with the NUL, and after that you can "process" the
message. By "process" I mean the substantive work that you will do as a
result of receiving the message (e.g. write to a database, interact with
the file system, start a new process, etc.). 

Eamon

-----Original Message-----
From: Gabe Wachob [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 28 June 2002 22:30
To: Eamon O'Tuathail
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: [BEEPwg] Soap Over Beep Question

IN the case of mixture of patterns (which I think will be the modal
case),
the wording *could* be interpreted to allow what you describe below
("peeks inside the envelope").

The way I read "immediately sends back a "NUL" message, before
processing
the contents of the envelope" says that you *can't* do what you propose.
The trick is what you mean by the "contents of the envelope". I read
this
as "you can't open up the SOAP envelope at all". I think you are
suggesting something else?

	-Gabe

---

From: Gabe Wachob <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 14:08:54 -0700 (PDT)

Thanks for the clarification.

I think we were reading that one sentence too literally.

These back and forth discussions serve a useful purpose because even
though the RFC is finalized, these archives will hopefully prevent repeat
questions. I just hope the archives stay up relatively permanently.

	-Gabe

---

From: "Rohit Karlupia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 12:39:01 +0530

Hi!

Thank you all for your inputs on the question. 
Eamon has very clearly stated the intent/meaning of 
that line and I am clear about it now.

There is one request I have. Would you guys care to reply 
to my second email. Starting from the first day I read
SOAP Over BEEP, I had this question in mind that why there
are no tags for message patterns, since in my openion they
would have made life alots easier for people using SOAP Over
BEEP. I would feel complete about the discussion if you guys
could give me some hints on why this was not done.

Thanks One Again! And looking forward to some more insights
on SOAP Over BEEP.

regards,
Rohit Karlupia 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Gabe Wachob
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 2:39 AM
To: Eamon O'Tuathail
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: [BEEPwg] Soap Over Beep Question

	-Gabe

---

From: "Eamon O'Tuathail" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 17:57:10 +0100

Rohit,

We did look at where to put information that is exchanged between the
BEEP peers, and concluded it was best to put it all inside the SOAP
envelope, and not to have any additional information flows (external to
the envelope). 

Note that RFC 3288 focuses on how SOAP travels over BEEP, not on the
internals of the SOAP envelope - the latter is the job of the W3C
XMLP/SOAP WG. 

I can appreciate why people might like an explicit description of the
message pattern to use, but you have to ask yourself would such a
description be useful only to BEEP, or might it also interest non-BEEP
SOAP users too (e.g. those who use SOAP-over-HTTP or SOAP-over-SMTP). I
think you will answer "yes" to this, and therefore the message pattern
description should rightly be placed inside the SOAP envelope (as a SOAP
message header), so it can be used by all. 

At the moment there is no (IANA-like) registry of possible message
pattern descriptions, but I could see it envolving in future. For now,
peers that accept multiple message patterns must determine from the
message how to respond.  
 
Eamon

---

From: Gabe Wachob <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 12:02:59 -0700 (PDT)

This discussion of where to put message exchange pattern information is a
live topic over at the XMLP, from what I can tell.

Some there appear to take the position that the MEP should be expressed
*by the transport binding* - that is, it would be expressed within the
BEEP profile (perhaps as a custom message header?). They apparently
believe that *they* are going to specify or have great influence over the
SOAP bindings.

So, your conclusion about where to put that information *may* end up being
in direct contradiction to what the XMLP group says.

Its not clear to me at this point, however, where the prevailing winds are
blowing, and I'm not sure this issue is soon to be closed (or if it has
very recently been closed at all).

	-Gabe