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: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 15:18:42 -0400
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020801151842.G15210@www.markbaker.ca>

On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 03:04:35PM -0400, Champion, Mike wrote:
> > 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.? 

Mostly friendly, yes. 8-)

The processing model is actually *more* Web friendly than HTTP!  Just so
you know I'm not anti-SOAP, just anti SOAP-as-its-used-today.

> 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?

Exactly, GET is the big issue.  URIs would be a very poor kludge, IMO.
One less kludgy approach is to consider defining a similar HTTP header
if a SOAP header can be used with GET.  Or, if we want a more general
solution, we could identify the need for an RFC 822 serialization of
SOAP and an HTTP binding that would seemlessly merge SOAP headers into
HTTP headers.  This would also require the use of an HTTP extension like
RFC 2774, and a mapping from SOAP features to 2774 features, e.g.
namespaces, mU.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2002 15:18:45 GMT

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