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

RE: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:07:24 -0600
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01624ACC@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

Agree.

-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:53 AM
To: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org '
Subject: RE: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Arnold [mailto:Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:27 AM
> To: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org '
> Subject: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility
> 
> > 
> > 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).

> 
> If "means something different" affects the semantics of the SOAP 
> exchange at the application level, I think you've just opened a large 
> can of trout. Suppose I want to write a web service which can support 
> client interactions over HTTP, BXXP, JMS, or RFC1149 avian transport. 
> SOAP over JMS (or SOAP over carrier pigeon) doesn't have any notion of

> PUT or POST.

Does anyone on the WG agree with Mark here?  Does anyone interpret Noah
Mendelsohn's comment to XMLP as implying what Mark seems to think it
implies?  I think [not wearing my chair hat] that a SOAP message
delivered with POST, PUT, or carrier pigeon should  have the same
semantics.  

I'd like to drain this trout pond.  I propose making sure that the
glossary definition of "protocol independence" includes the concept that
a Web service invocation has the same effect irrespective of the
protocol or protocol-level features used to transmit it, and to action
the editors to use Dave Orchard's  discussion of "visibility" in the
document and glossary where appropriate.

That way we can move on, and Mark or whomever can raise a formal issue
that we will record and address for consideration by others later in the
W3C process.  Of course, if someone on the WG wants to discuss this
further, we can do that.

I'm sure this will be seen as another sign of "the management" exerting
schedule, but I think of it as just taking down the "Gone Fishin'" sign
off the office  door. :-)
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 11:08:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:15 GMT