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

RE: SOAP and transfer/transport protocols

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 00:47:04 -0700
To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00a201c2061b$dcb1aaf0$d11ce8d8@beasys.com>
Mike, nicely put.  I can usually rest after getting your posts.  (and the
puns are all intentional, though not very safe)

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Champion, Mike
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 7:59 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: SOAP and transfer/transport protocols
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> > Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 9:30 PM
> > To: David Orchard
> > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: SOAP and transfer/transport protocols
> >
> >
> > > What requirements
> > > and usage scenarios are met/not met with particular
> > > architecture decisions.
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> OK, what requirements and usage scenarios are not met when SOAP
> is treated as the application protocol, and HTTP is a transport
> protocol rather than an application protocol?   Since this is
> well-trodden territory, let's avoid references to Dr. Fielding's
> work and argumentation of the "it should be a requirement
> not to tunnel HTTP", or "we should not accept use cases that are
> inconsistent with the Web Architecture" variety.  What *tangible*
> use cases cannot be achieved if the Web Services Architecture allows
> SOAP to be tunnelled over HTTP POST?  (I'm assuming that there will be
> a GET binding so that those who have a requirement to hyperlink to
> "safe" services can do so).
>
> Consider a situation where a web services application uses HTTP to
> reach an intermediary, which uses SMTP to reach another intermediary,
> which uses MQ Series to reach an application.  What
> practical advantage for developers or users is achieved by
> "allowing the semantics of each hop in the route to be
> dictated by the protocol in use on that hop?"  What is the
> disadvantage in this scenario of treating SOAP as the application
> protocol and SMTP, HTTP, and some hypothetical, proprietary MQ Series
> binding as details of how bits are moved around?
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2002 03:50:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:00 GMT