W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > April 2003

RE: The stack diagram (was RE: Discussion topic for tomorrow'scall)

From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 19:55:32 -0400
To: "Katia Sycara" <katia@cs.cmu.edu>, "Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>, "Cutler, Roger \(RogerCutler\)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>, "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>
Cc: "Jeckle, Mario" <mario@jeckle.de>, "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>, <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <ECEDLFLFGIEENIPIEJJPEEOMDPAA.anne@manes.net>

I would say that, given the debate we're having over protocol independence,
that HTTP isn't a requirement, either.

I thought that we had decided that the minimum requirement was an XML
protocol, and that the reference architecture identifies SOAP as the W3C
standard XML protocol.

Anne

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Katia Sycara
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 7:30 PM
> To: Newcomer, Eric; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); Hugo Haas
> Cc: Jeckle, Mario; Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org;
> Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: The stack diagram (was RE: Discussion topic for
> tomorrow'scall)
>
>
>
> Indeed we agreed that SOAP was not a requirement, but an example
> technology.
>  --Katia
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Newcomer, Eric
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 5:33 PM
> To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); Hugo Haas
> Cc: Jeckle, Mario; Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org;
> Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: The stack diagram (was RE: Discussion topic for
> tomorrow'scall)
>
>
>
> I am not sure we ever said SOAP was a requirement, although personally it
> seems to me to be a kind of minimum requirement for what's
> typically thought
> of as a "web service" -- it all started with the SOAP spec back
> in late '99,
> after all.
>
> Our formal Web services definitions have tended to be more generic, along
> the lines of "XML over HTTP"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 5:23 PM
> To: Hugo Haas; Newcomer, Eric
> Cc: Jeckle, Mario; Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org;
> Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: The stack diagram (was RE: Discussion topic for
> tomorrow'scall)
>
>
> AHA!!  Hugo seems to be saying that you can have a Web service that just
> uses HTTP without SOAP, as I documented in the note I just sent a few
> minutes ago.  So we are NOT saying that Web services MUST use SOAP?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugo Haas [mailto:hugo@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 11:26 AM
> To: Newcomer, Eric
> Cc: Jeckle, Mario; Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org;
> Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> Subject: Re: The stack diagram (was RE: Discussion topic for tomorrow's
> call)
>
>
> * Newcomer, Eric <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com> [2003-04-09 11:08-0400]
> > This would be much clearer and more useful without the protocol
> > binding box extending into the SOAP area.  Representing the major
> concepts clearly in a diagram should be the goal rather than including
> every detail in the diagram.
> >
> > We want to provide someone with a visual understanding of the
> > architectural framework, meaning primarily what is included within it,
> and represent *to some extent* the relationships among the major pieces.
> >
> > Drawing the line between what is clear and general and specific and
> > confusing is never easy, and no doubt we will have many opinions.
> >
> > I'd like to propose that we adopt this version of the diagram, without
>
> > the protocol binding part, and move on.
>
> I think that it all comes down to knowing how many diagrams we need to
> represent our space, so that each diagram is reasonnably simple and
> understandable.
>
> We need to address the fact that HTTP without SOAP may be used to do
> some requests, such as with the SOAP 1.2 HTTP GET binding.
>
> This is why I am worried about showing HTTP in the transport box without
> any link to the message box. I think that I could live with this diagram
> if there was some text accompanying it talking about that.
>
> And in this case we should also add some explanation about why HTTP is
> in a box called transport, otherwise I foresee comments about that.
>
> Regards,
>
> Hugo
>
> --
> Hugo Haas - W3C
> mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 14 April 2003 19:54:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:17 GMT