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

RE: WSA assumes SOAP?

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:19:29 -0800
To: "'Mike Champion'" <mike.champion@softwareag-usa.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002c01c27f90$de62a4a0$4e0ba8c0@beasys.com>

I'm really torn on this one.  At some point, architectures are only
successful if they reduce options.  OTOH, precluding XML messages over HTTP
from Web Services Reference architecture seems difficult for me to push for.
SOAP, WSDL are preferred.  Maybe they are "best practices"?  Or a "level 1"
web service?

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Mike Champion
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 8:17 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: WSA assumes SOAP?
>
>
>
> [resending from my private account ... sorry if a duplicate
> arrives at some point]
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hao He [mailto:Hao.He@thomson.com.au]
> > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 1:57 AM
> > To: 'Christopher B Ferris'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: new editor's draft of WSA available
> >
> >
>
> > that in many cases, SOAP messaging is not necessary at all.
> > People are just
> > happy to get XML from a URL without any SOAP packaging.  This
> > is actually
> > fine for many use cases (especially for query type of
> > services).  I hope
> > that messaging without SOAP can also become part of the document.
>
> Here's what I would suggest saying about this somewhere early
> in the document:
>
> "Our definition of the term "Web Services" does not
> presuppose the use of SOAP as
> a packaging format or a processing model.  Nor does it
> presuppose the use of WSDL
> as a service description language.  There are, and will be in
> the future, plenty
> of "web services" that use raw HTTP as a data transfer
> protocol and some mutually
> agreed-upon XML format as the message content.  The Web
> Services *reference
> architecture* does, however, assume that the higher levels of
> the web services
> protocol stack are built on the foundation of SOAP and WSDL.
>
> This "blessing" of SOAP and WSDL is not logically necessary,
> since some other
> mechanism could be defined to gather XML message components
> into a single package,
> and other description mechanisms [mention DAML-S ??] could be
> used instead of
> WSDL. Perhaps in the long run, other technologies will
> supplant SOAP and WSDL, and
> it is not the intent of the WSA to discourage research and
> experimentation in
> these areas. On the other hand, the WSA WG believes that a
> common foundation is a
> *practical* necessity for the industry to move forward with
> additional web
> services functionality, including security, choreography,
> etc.  Thus, the WSA
> reference architecture builds on SOAP and WSDL as the basis
> for messaging and
> description. Specifications that conform to the WSA reference
> architecture MUST
> use SOAP and WSDL when appropriate."
>
> Or something like that ...
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 16:19:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:09 GMT