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

RE: RE: Architectural recommendations in the SOAP 1.2 Rec

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:07:08 -0700
To: <jalgermissen@topicmapping.com>
Cc: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002b01c33b3c$3688d700$7106a8c0@beasys.com>

I think the soap 1.2 spec is being neutral and not making a recommendation.
It's more like, if you want to put soap 1.2 rpc resources on the web, here's
an algorithm for how you should do it.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jalgermissen@topicmapping.com
> [mailto:jalgermissen@topicmapping.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 1:40 AM
> To: dorchard@bea.com
> Cc: 'Mark Baker'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: RE: Architectural recommendations in the SOAP 1.2 Rec
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> quick comment from a lurker:
>
> Isn't the real question if this part of SOAP 1.2 intends to recommend
> that Web Services be 'on the Web' or if it does not intend to
> recommend
> that?
>
> Jan
>
>
> David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com> schrieb am 25.06.2003, 08:34:44:
> >
> > I don't think that soap 1.2 is doing what you think it is
> doing, and I think
> > you are again stretching to achieve your personal agenda.
> >
> > The text that you quote is specific, and says "... when
> deploying SOAP RPC
> > applications on the World Wide Web".  A typical of
> definition of "on the
> > Web" is the ability to dereference a URI using HTTP GET.
> So, by definition,
> > to deploy an application on the web, it must have a URI.
> Notice that many
> > things that are Web-ish (what do we call these things
> anyways?) aren't "on
> > the web".  For example, HTML FORM POST results.  Or indeed
> some SOAP POST
> > results.  And that's just fine.  We don't say "Oh btw, you
> shouldn't use
> > HTML FORMs with POST because they aren't on the web".
> >
> > So, the sentence is very well written and correct, and it
> is not saying any
> > of the constraints that you claim.  Saying that a Web
> service that is on the
> > Web must identifiy resources by URI is quite redundant in fact.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Dave
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Mark Baker
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 8:20 PM
> > > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > > Subject: Architectural recommendations in the SOAP 1.2 Rec
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Now that SOAP 1.2 is a Recommendation(!), I wanted to point out a
> > > specific part of it that I believe significantly impacts the WSA.
> > > That part is;
> > >
> > > "The following guidelines SHOULD be followed when
> deploying SOAP RPC
> > > applications on the World Wide Web."
> > >  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part2/#soapforrpc
> > >
> > > which is followed up by some suggestions (though still under
> > > the "SHOULD"
> > > umbrella) for how to architect your app.
> > >
> > > I believe that these are constraints which SOAP 1.2 are
> placing upon
> > > Web services.  Specifically, I think it's prescribing these two
> > > constraints;
> > >
> > > - identify resources by URI, not by other means
> > > - use the uniform interface constraint for retrievals
> > >
> > > I believe this requires one of two things;
> > >
> > > - REST style Web services given preference, as they have already
> > > incorporated both those constraints, or
> > > - some SOA style extension which includes these two constraints,
> > > but which is also given preference
> > > (I'd be happy to write prose for whichever one the group picks)
> > >
> > > Alternately, if the group determines that "SHOULD"
> > > recommendations from
> > > SOAP 1.2 should not be followed by the WSA, I think some wording
> > > explaining that position should be included.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Mark.
> > > --
> > > Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.
> http://www.markbaker.ca
> > >
> > >
> --
> Jan Algermissen                <algermissen@acm.org>
> Consultant & Programmer
>
> http://www.topicmapping.com
> http://www.gooseworks.org
>
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 13:07:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:21 GMT