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

RE: WSA assumes SOAP?

From: Hao He <Hao.He@thomson.com.au>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:58:41 +1100
Message-ID: <686B9E7C8AA57A45AE8DDCC5A81596AB046AE135@sydthqems01.INT.TISA.COM.AU>
To: "'Champion, Mike'" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org, "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>, "'Christopher B Ferris'" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>

I like "Level 1" web service.  They are perfectly legitimate,
and good for some subset of use cases (Paul Prescod might
argue that this doesn't need to be a proper subset!).  Still,
ya gotta pay the SOAP tax if you want WS-Security ... ya gotta 
pay the WSDL tax if you want choreography, etc. etc. etc.

It's analogous to well-formed XML ... perfectly legal, but you
gotta pay the DTD/schema tax if you want constraints, defaults, validation,
data binding, types, etc. etc. etc. 

<hh>I really like this analogy. Another analogy is http vs https.  HTTPS is
secure but most of browsing activities  are still HTTP based. The very point
here is that people don't want to pay the HTTPS tax if they don't want
security.  Likewise, people don't want to pay the SOAP tax if they don't
want those extra features offered by SOAP.  As the WS working group, we
should realize this and not to enforce SOAP on people. In fact, from
architectural point of view, we can have a natural transition from "having
no special packaging (naked XML)" to XML clothed with SOAP. 

Anyway, I'd like to see the architecture document worded in such a way that
people feel comfortable not to use SOAP if they don't have to without
worrying that their implementation is not conforming to the W3C reference
architecture.  In other words, messaging without SOAP is one form of
messaging patterns formally recognized by this group.

</hh>

Hao


Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 18:05:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:10 GMT