W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2003

Re: [whenToUseGet] PUT/POST & GET with SOAP

From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:17:31 -0400
Message-ID: <002201c33ac1$befee1e0$6f01a8c0@TPX21>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "'Ian B. Jacobs'" <ij@w3.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>


I'm all for doing away with the RPC convention. It's terrible that the
designer has to make the RPC vs Document design decision at the abstract
interface level -- forced by the fact that you have to define the part as a
type with RPC and an element with Document. And I really don't see what
value it adds other then letting you define your parts as types versus


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>; <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "'Ian B. Jacobs'" <ij@w3.org>; <www-tag@w3.org>; <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: [whenToUseGet] PUT/POST & GET with SOAP

> Hi Noah,
> > * So-called RPC-Literal, which seems to be emerging from the WSDL work
> > group.  My understanding is that they are taking advantage of the
> > lattitude in SOAP to use [1] without [2].  The REST guidelines apply
> > equally to such RPC-literal as to RPC encoded, IMO.  Indeed, there is
> > reason to believe that RPC literal is emerging as the dominant usage
> > pattern for SOAP RPC, but we'll see.
> There is a move to eliminate the document/rpc split in WSDL ..
> which would result in quite a simplification IMO. The WG has not
> yet accepted this, but I believe it is possible.
> RPC would then simply become an application of the request/response
> pattern. In all likelihood there will be some hints which indicate
> that the messages being sent are defined using RPC conventions in
> mind, but probably nothing more than that.
> This is all highly speculative and my personal opinion at this time.
> Sanjiva.
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2003 22:30:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:38 UTC