W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > August 2002

RE: Do RESTifarians want anything from the WSA that they don't al ready have?

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 15:04:35 -0400
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E403B48660@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 1:57 PM
> To: Champion, Mike
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Do RESTifarians want anything from the WSA that 
> they don't
> already have?
> 
> 
> For sure, there's all sorts of new extensions we can 
> identify, including many that people have been talking about 
> all along; transactions,
> conversations, reliability, routing, etc...  

Dare I hope that you would find the SOAP 1.2 header extension mechanism a
Web-friendly means of communicating the state of transactions,
conversations, reliability, etc.? 

GET's are obviously going to be a bit of a problem,  For example, how does
one communicate the security information that one might put in a SOAP header
on a GET operation?  I guess the URI could encode the header, maybe hashing
or otherwise compressing things like namespace URIs that tend to be long
....  

Thoughts?
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2002 15:04:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:03 GMT