W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2006

Re: SOAP & Web arch

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:50:56 -0500
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0603290750q1c08a303k59a183e5c92dda9a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

Hey Henrik,

On 3/29/06, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> I have to disagree with you on this point. As to the exact part of Web architecture we are discussing I think you are referring to the principle that first class entities must be identified by URIs.

Actually, no, my concern was that the ultimate recipient of the
message wasn't identified by the value of the Request-URI.

> This is exactly the purpose of the SOAP intermediary model. As such the SOAP intermediary model exactly fits this Web principle: SOAP headers can be addressed to named intermediary roles and faults are identified by the issuing node.

If that's all that was going on here, I would agree, as I see definite
value in being able to address (indirectly) intermediaries.  But SOAP
headers - wsa:To in particular - are not being used to address
intermediaries, they're being used to address the ultimate recipient
of the message.  And, as I discovered after some investigation, and
much to my embarassment (since I should have caught it while a member
of the XMLP WG) this was in part due to an ambiguity in the SOAP 1.2
spec itself.  See my previous message for the details.

FWIW, I do agree that SOAP 1.1 can be used in a manner completely
consistent with Web architecture.  And were it not for this problem, I
would agree that SOAP 1.2 could be too ... and in fact I said so many
times, before I discovered this problem.

Cheers,

Mark.
--
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Wednesday, 29 March 2006 15:51:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:39 GMT