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

Re: SOAP & Web arch

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 10:15:28 -0500
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFCEB69F47.948BE31C-ON85257141.0053E473-85257141.005435FC@lotus.com>

Mark Baker writes:

> So while the ambiguity I pointed out is a problem with the spec
> because it yields work which is incompatible with Web arch - as
> demonstrated by the WS-Addressing SOAP binding's failure to populate
> the value of the ImmediateDestination property (presumably due to the
> WG assuming that ImmediateDestination never identifies the ultimate
> recipient, per that ambiguity) - I agree that there's at least one Web
> architecture-friendly use of the spec.

Mark, would it them be fair to say that your concern is primarily with WSA 
as opposed to SOAP?  No doubt SOAP can be used in non-RESTful ways, but so 
can HTTP.  For example, if I choose to make up my own non-URI 
identification scheme and use it in representations sent over HTTP, the 
protocol can't stop me.  BTW: in saying this, I'm not offering an opinion 
as to whether WSA is indeed misusing Web Architecture, as I'm still trying 
to figure that out.  I'm merely pointing out that if there's a problem, it 
looks to me like it's WSA not SOAP that's the primary concern.  Do you 
agree?


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








"Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
03/29/06 04:46 PM
 
        To:     "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
        cc:     www-tag@w3.org, (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Re: SOAP & Web arch



On 3/29/06, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com> wrote:
> There is no reason why the immediate destination and the ultimate
> destination can't be the same and in case of the HTTP binding the two
> will collapse to always be the same.

Ah, I see what you mean.  Yes, in the case where there's no
non-terminating SOAP/HTTP intermediary, that would be consistent with
Web arch.  Fair enough.

So while the ambiguity I pointed out is a problem with the spec
because it yields work which is incompatible with Web arch - as
demonstrated by the WS-Addressing SOAP binding's failure to populate
the value of the ImmediateDestination property (presumably due to the
WG assuming that ImmediateDestination never identifies the ultimate
recipient, per that ambiguity) - I agree that there's at least one Web
architecture-friendly use of the spec.

Thanks, Henrik.

Mark.
--
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Thursday, 30 March 2006 15:16:16 GMT

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