• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented v s action-oriented
• From: "Jeff Greif" <jgreif@a...>
• Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 18:50:43 -0800
• References: <E16Xv8j-000712-00@m...>

Among the ways to do this is CORBA AMI (Asynchronous Messaging).  You pass
the object reference of the object that's waiting for the callback.  In some
CORBA implementations you specify the signature of the synchronous message,
and indicate as a configuration option that you also want an asynch version,
and much of the rest is done automatically by the IDL compiler.  You still
have to fill in the implementation of the callback, of course.

Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Cowan" <cowan@m...>
To: <andrzej@c...>
Cc: "Michael Brennan" <Michael_Brennan@A...>; <costello@m...>;
<xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 6:15 PM
Subject: Re:  Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented v s
action-oriented


> Andrzej Jan Taramina scripsit:
>
> > True, but the tendancy (including SOAPs RPC) seems to be towards a
> > synchronous approach.  Async request/response usually takes a lot of
extra
> > coding (beyond synchronous RPC or even Pub/Sub messaging).
>
> What I'd like to see is a convention whereby you can send an async
> request packaged with a "continuation" to which the reply is sent.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented v s action-oriented
    • From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>

• References:
  • Re: Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented v s action-oriented
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented v s action-oriented
• Next by Date: Re: "Smart ASCII" -> XML for authoring?
• Previous by thread: Re: Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented v s action-oriented
• Next by thread: Re: Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented v s action-oriented
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread