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

Re: TAG document: SOAP HTTP GET binding available

From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 15:57:30 -0700
Message-ID: <3CD85BDA.76E7B5A6@prescod.net>
To: www-tag@w3.org
David Orchard wrote:
> 
>...
> 
> The point that my proposal addresses is how to have a re-usable transcoding
> between a SOAP HTTP POST binding and a HTTP GET binding, instead of having
> each service create it's own transcoding.
> 
> A sample usage scenario that I see is that a user creates a web service and
> marks it as "safe". 

It seems much more likely to me that the use wants to mark a particular
*operation* as a safe, rather than an entire web service. It is also
unclear to me why the "input" to this process should be a SOAP/HTTP POST
binding.

Here's what I was expecting: There is an intermediary which maps from,
let's say, the MQSeries/SOAP world to the HTTP/SOAP world. It would be
able to bidirectionally transcode MQSeries/SOAP<->HTTP/SOAP, selecting
the right method based upon something in the message. Ideally, client
side SOAP toolkits would have some mechanism for putting the "something"
in the message.

> .... A tool then automatically generates a SOAP HTTP POST
> binding and a GET binding in the WSDL.  Their runtime software could be
> configured to automatically map the GET invokes into a POST invoke, perhaps
> based upon the "safe" attribute in WSDL.  The user only had to create one
> implementation (the POST) and the user did not have to define the
> transcoding algorithm.

Why would a user want both a POST and a GET interface to their service?
If the GET binding is complete then a GET interface should be
sufficient.

 Paul Prescod
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2002 18:57:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:31 UTC