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

RE: A question for our leaders (was RE: AR023.7.1 (was Re: Dead trou t

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:49:27 -0800
To: "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Ugo Corda
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 11:41 AM
> To: Assaf Arkin; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: A question for our leaders (was RE: AR023.7.1 (was Re: Dead
> trou t
> > In the REST section it should describe one that uses HTTP
> > bindings and the
> > action is encoded in the URL.
> >
> > In the 'other' (what do we call it?) it shoudl describe one
> > that uses SOAP
> > and the action is contained in the message.
> But let's not forget that SOAP 1.2 also allows GET requests. In
> that case, we are still talking about a SOAP request, but the
> "action" is contained in the URL.

That's why I said 'other' ;-)

It definitely does not belong in the SOAP section, since SOAP allows both
uses (and in my opinion should continue to do so). It belongs in a section
that places further constraints on the use of SOAP. Maybe that section would
only consider using SOAP with HTTP POST, action in the header, particular
ways for using intermediaries, etc.

But what do we call it? What's the architecture style in which we would only
use SOAP in that particular manner?


> Ugo
Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 14:51:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:03 UTC