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

RE: D-AG0017 - Business Infrastructure

From: Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 20:41:40 -0800
To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000801c1cbdb$b3cd3110$ac897ed8@amer.cisco.com>

	I fail to understand your issue with ebXML and BTP for that
matter. They follow SOAP over HTTP. The points you are raising are basic
to SOAP over HTTP rather than to BTP or ebXML.

	Also your term "web services protocol" is a little vague. Isn't
it SOAP/HTTP ? There is no "web services protocol" per se.

	Third, what exactly is wrong ? They use HTTP POST as a transport
mechanism, which looks Ok to me. 

	I will lok into the issue of BTP introdicung new application
semantics. My first impression is "why not". But it is a WAG, I will dig
into it and think more, in the mean time would appreciate any thoughts.


 | -----Original Message-----
 | From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org 
 | [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark Baker
 | Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 8:37 PM
 | To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)"
 | Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
 | Subject: Re: D-AG0017 - Business Infrastructure
 | > Note that some of these issues are being addressed, at 
 | least to some degree,
 | > in the OASIS ebXML Messaging Services TC
 | > (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/
 | > <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/> ).  
 | There may be some
 | > questions, however, about whether this work conforms to 
 | the W3C vision of
 | > web architecture (Mark Baker has indicated this but has 
 | not specified
 | > exactly what the issues are) or of completeness.
 | I don't recall commenting on ebXML messaging, but since 
 | you're asking,
 | yes, it has some major issues too.  Not as many as, say, BTP 
 | (since BTP
 | introduces new application semantics), but still quite a few.
 | The common issue with virtually all Web services protocol specs out
 | there today is that they tunnel over POST.  That is, they ignore the
 | meaning of POST that HTTP assigns, and instead place their own
 | meaning over top.  That none of these specifications use PUT or GET
 | is a *major* architectural issue, as GET, PUT, and POST form a kind
 | of "complete triumvirate" of state transfer operations, capable of
 | representing any distributed hypermedia state change (or state
 | inspection, ala GET - plus you need deletion, with DELETE).
 | To be Web architecture friendly, you have to use POST, even 
 | with SOAP,
 | to *mean* POST.  A side effect of this, is that using SOAP 
 | with HTTP and
 | the default binding in a Web architecture friendly way, requires that
 | you still use HTTP (and not SOAP - gasp! 8-) for doing GET and PUT to
 | the same URIs you were POSTing to.
 | For example, you might POST a SOAP message containing an XML vCard to
 | http://mysite.org/addressBook in order to add an entry.  Then to view
 | the address book with the new entry, you just do a GET on 
 | it.  A PUT on
 | the address book would overwrite what was there before, and DELETE
 | would remove it.
 | MB
 | -- 
 | Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
 | Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
 | http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 23:42:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:55 UTC