1. WS-Async food for thought Caveats: 1)Using WSDL 1.1 since its simpler (for now), and I dont want to get hung up (yet) on MEP issues 2)This foilset is meant to express the ideas (so dont get caught up on syntax of the various WSDL bits)

2. Req/Response HTTP Message (same socket connection) Request Invoker Service POST /service/reqresp HTTP/1.1 : <soapenv:Envelope : HTTP/1.1 200 OK : <soapenv:Envelope :

3. WSDL 1.1 binding Note: The transport operates in a request/response fashion. Since its spanning the input/output, SOAP data is sent in both directions

4. WSDL 1.1 PortType : Note: Typically, this corresponds to something very natural in a programming model language mapping that most companies support

5. One-way HTTP Message (one socket connection) Request Invoker Service POST /service/onewayreq HTTP/1.1 : <soapenv:Envelope : HTTP/1.1 202 OK Note: There is no SOAP envelope in the TRANSPORT response

6. WSDL 1.1 binding Note: Just removed the output statement. Since the HTTP transport is req/resp, it covers the implicit sending of the HTTP 202 response. WS-I covers that no SOAP response is sent over the wire on the response (and should be ignored if it is).

7. WSDL 1.1 PortType : Note: Typically, this corresponds to something very natural in a programming model language mapping that most companies support

8. Req/Resp HTTP Message (two socket connections) Request Invoker Service POST /service/request HTTP/1.1 : <soapenv:Envelope : HTTP/1.1 202 OK POST /invoker/response HTTP/1.1 : <soapenv:Envelope : HTTP/1.1 202 OK Note: There is no SOAP envelope in the TRANSPORT responses

9. Before we look at the bindings…, lets take a quick peek at what *could* be a portType rendering of this….

10. WSDL 1.1 PortType (using the same req/resp interface) : Note: Does this make sense on the service side? Possibly Note: Does this make sense on the invoker side? Im not sure…

11. WSDL 1.1 PortType (using two linked interfaces) Note: The link is a unidirectional link which says which interface is acting as the response. Therefore, it really represents the interface into the invoker

12. WSDL 1.1 binding (for single interface)

13. WSDL 1.1 binding (for two interface model) Note: The just appear as 2 normal one-way messages. The relationship can be obtained from the PortType

14. Req/Resp (http/smtp) 2 Different Transport protocols Request Invoker Service POST /service/request HTTP/1.1 : <soapenv:Envelope : HTTP/1.1 202 OK To: From: : <soapenv:Envelope : Note: Sometimes its ok to not flow transport responses (if the protocol doesnt require them)

15. WSDL 1.1 binding (for one interface model) Note: Just the transport changed…

16. WSDL 1.1 binding (for two interface model) Note: Just the transport changed…

17. Todo: Walk through Fault flows (I believe it makes a difference at the PortType level… - which gets interesting)