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

WS-I and RPC

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 23:28:45 -0500
To: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030105232845.B12258@www.markbaker.ca>

On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 08:14:23PM -0800, Ugo Corda wrote:
> 
> > You seem to be beating on the RPC strawman, even after the 
> > WS-I has declared him legally dead :-) 
> 
> This is not exactly correct. What the WS-I Basic Profile has ruled out is RPC with SOAP Encoding (Chapt. 5 of SOAP 1.1). Literal RPC is still part of the Basic Profile.
> 
> Recently there were discussions to drop the RPC style entirely from the Basic Profile (which I would have been in favor of), but it was rejected since many people considered that too big a change this late in the game.

Pretty much every use of SOAP is what I call "RPC", in that developers
define the network interface, rather than reusing the network interface
provided for them by application protocols.

So until Web services folk stop putting methods in the SOAP body when
transferring messages over application protocols, I won't be happy.

As Roy says;

"In order for SOAP-ng to succeed as a Web protocol, it needs to start
behaving like it is part of the Web. That means, among other things,
that it should stop trying to encapsulate all sorts of actions under an
object-specific interface."
 -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Apr/0181

FWIW, SOAP 1.1 and 1.2 are "SOAP-ng" - but people still use them like
they're SOAP 1.0, which isn't.  Roy's comments were more an indictment
of current practice than the specs themselves.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Sunday, 5 January 2003 23:28:23 GMT

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