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

RE: whenToUseGet-7 Making SOAP Restful

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 19:33:10 -0400
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF6705B731.E1633D09-ON85256BA7.0082387C@lotus.com>
OK...we've had an early request to limit interactions on each subject 
something on the order of three responses per person.  I think that works 
well for the tag's purposes of soliciting perspectives on architectural 
issues.  It's obviously somewhat limiting in refining particular design 
proposals, hence my suggestion to move this one out of the tag's way. 
Pending further guidance from that tag, I guess we'll try and discuss this 
one as succinctly as possible on the tag list.  Thanks.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







"David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
04/26/2002 07:30 PM

 
        To:     <www-tag@w3.org>
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        RE: whenToUseGet-7 Making SOAP Restful


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 19:44:39 GMT

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