W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2002

RE: whenToUseGet-7 Making SOAP Restful

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:30:03 -0700
To: <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <007901c1ed7a$4b256720$461ce8d8@beasys.com>
Noah,

As a TAG member, I do not want the XMLP WG as it is currently chartered to
be tasked with solving this problem.  Further, SOAP 1.2 should be the focus
for dist-app, IMO.  I believe that the TAG should be the focal point for
this issue, if the issue won't go to the web services architecture group.
For these reasons and a few others, I would prefer to keep discussions on
the TAG list.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 4:09 PM
> To: Mark Baker
> Cc: Williams, Stuart; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: whenToUseGet-7 Making SOAP Restful
>
>
> Mark Baker writes:
>
> >> But IMO, trying to build something HTTP-like on top of
> >> SOAP, which in turn will often be on top of HTTP, is
> >> quite impractical and unnecessary.
>
> I think this is a reflection of the Web's failure, so far, to
> separate a
> generic REST layer, from its embodiment in a particular
> protocol (HTTP).
> My proposal does not set out to recreate HTTP...it attempts
> to map a part
> of REST into SOAP.  We might also want to also do DELETE, but
> I think SOAP
> does the right thing by providing a structured architecture
> for exploiting
> POST (not HTTP POST, POST in general).
>
> Guidance sought from the TAG:  it's obvious there is a desire
> among some
> correspondents to drill on the SOAP/REST issue.  It's not
> clear to me that
> the www-tag list is the right place to hash out the details
> (or that this
> necessarily is the right time.)  Should we move this discussion to
> distApp?  How should we manage the need to figure drill on the
> SOAP/REST-specific issues, while also keeping the Tag in the
> loop on the
> underlying
> SOAP/REST/is-the-web-rest-only/is-soap-a-broken-w3c-activity
> discussion?  Thanks.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
> 04/26/2002 08:51 AM
>
>
>         To:     "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>         cc:     noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, www-tag@w3.org
>         Subject:        Re: whenToUseGet-7 Making SOAP Restful
>
>
> Hi Stuart,
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 09:09:46AM +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> > Just a thought anyway... a 'null' SOAP request message as
> the 'trigger'
> to
> > use HTTP GET rather than some other 'magical' incantation.
> What do you
> > think? Others? Mark B?
>
> Noah's example was a good one to help illustrate the different ways in
> which one can think of using SOAP, especially as it relates to making
> use of the semantics of application protocols.
>
> But IMO, trying to build something HTTP-like on top of SOAP, which in
> turn will often be on top of HTTP, is quite impractical and
> unnecessary.
> It's true that HTTP's extensibility and processing models
> aren't as rich
> as SOAP's, but also IMO, these small improvements are no where near
> enough to justify the huge cost of deploying such a solution.
>
> I think that if SOAP has a future on the Web (as opposed to on the
> Internet), it will be with the chameleon use where both SOAP and HTTP
> are used by developers at the same time (though an EDI-like
> use of SOAP
> over POST is fine, it's a niche).  But I've yet to see a SOAP library
> that supports such a use.
>
> MB
> --
> Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
> http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 19:33:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:06 GMT