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

Re: Visibility (was Re: Introducing the Service Oriented Architec tural style, and it's constraints and properties.

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:18:07 -0500
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Cc: "'www-ws-arch@w3.org '" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20030226001807.J18728@www.markbaker.ca>

On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 09:09:31PM -0500, Champion, Mike wrote:
> > Whoa, where'd that last part come from?  Reference please.  I agree
> > that protocol independance is a good thing, but not such that there's
> > no semantic difference between using HTTP and SMTP, for example.  Of
> > couse there's a difference; they're different applications.
> >
> Whoa yourself :-)  If a SOAP message has a semantic difference if it is
> transported (I use the term deliberately) over SMTP than if it is POSTed
> over HTTP (or send on a floppy disk by sneakernet), then some deep
> requirement of WSA (and SOAP 1.2, IIRC) is not being met. 

Do you recall the recent xml-dist-app discussion about the semantics of
a SOAP message including the method of the underlying protocol?  Noah

  'I think it's useful and appropriate to separate the term "message"
  from "envelope".   I think the destination and web method are surely
  part of the message.'
 -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Feb/0005

Which says to me that sending a SOAP envelope with HTTP PUT means
something different than sending it with POST (and any other
application protocol method, for that matter).

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 00:14:51 UTC

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