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

Re: Proposed text for 2.2.21 (take 2)

From: Francis McCabe <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:44:08 -0700
Cc: "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>, "'Ugo Corda'" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, "'Anne Thomas Manes'" <anne@manes.net>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
To: Hao He <Hao.He@thomson.com.au>
Message-Id: <73C023C6-AB22-11D7-BF87-000393A3327C@fla.fujitsu.com>

I think the group should vote on this. This is the same thing that has 
been debated again and again; it is time to put it to bed.

Frank

On Sunday, June 29, 2003, at 09:51  PM, Hao He wrote:

> Just to summarise what people have said about the proposed text and my
> responses:
>
> 1. The first is whether parameters in a URL are message content. Let's
> consider a few cases for the all well-known getStock example (getting a
> stock quote for the last 10 days):
>
> case 1:
> GET  http://www.stockquote.com/stock/companyX/slidingWindow/10
>
> case 2:
> GET http://www.stockquote.com/stock?company=companyX&slidingWindow=10
>
> It appears to me that case 1 has no content. In the second case, 
> however,
> the parameters appear to be the content since only
> http://www.stockquote.com/stock is regarded as the URI.
>
> 2. The second is whether to include the plain XML over HTTP example. 
> If I
> recall correctly, the main objection is that plain XML over HTTP does 
> not
> supported extended functionality defined in this architecture.  This 
> is fine
> since I made this point clear in the text.  IMHO, I really think we 
> should
> include this because: a) Many people are doing this already.  
> Supporting
> this pattern can only make this architecture more useful. b) 
> Technically,
> using SOAP is not justified if extended functionality is not needed or 
> when
> performance is critical.
>
> Hao
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 7:27 AM
> To: 'Ugo Corda'; 'Anne Thomas Manes'; 'Francis McCabe'; Hao He
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed text for 2.2.21 (take 2)
>
>
> Indeed.  I had tried a while ago to rationalize the relationship 
> between
> SOAP message and representations.  I think we need to be clear that a 
> SOAP
> message *may* contain a representation, but it is not a "a SOAP 
> message is-a
> type of representation".  The features and bindings section describes 
> the
> properties of soap messages and the shared environment.  
> Representations are
> part of the properties of the message.  Other properties include 
> binding
> specific properties that aren't in the representation.
>
> It should be observed that the soap+xml mime type is for envelope 
> infosets
> serialized as xml.  Now I *think* that representation=envelope infoset.
> Might be interesting to call this out.
>
> messages, envelopes, representations, meps.  Good stuff to get clear.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
>> Behalf Of Ugo Corda
>> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 10:47 AM
>> To: Anne Thomas Manes; Francis McCabe; Hao He
>> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: Proposed text for 2.2.21 (take 2)
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, according to the SOAP definition of a Response MEP
>> (which the HTTP GET binding is associated with):
>> "The SOAP Response MEP defines a pattern for the exchange of
>> a non-SOAP message acting as a request followed by a SOAP
>> message acting as a response".
>>
>> So the SOAP 1.2 spec says there are two messages involved ...
>>
>> Ugo
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:anne@manes.net]
>>> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 10:29 AM
>>> To: Ugo Corda; Francis McCabe; Hao He
>>> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: Proposed text for 2.2.21 (take 2)
>>>
>>>
>>> I think Mark's point is that when you use the HTTP GET Web
>>> Feature, you
>>> don't *send* a message to the resource. You simply GET the
>>> representation,
>>> which happens to be a SOAP message.
>>>
>>> Anne
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
>>> To: "Francis McCabe" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>; "Hao He"
>>> <Hao.He@thomson.com.au>
>>> Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
>>> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 12:50 PM
>>> Subject: RE: Proposed text for 2.2.21 (take 2)
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I would strongly suggest removing the references to using
>>> HTTP GET as a
>>>>> way of sending messages. Mark B is right on this one. If
>>> you want to
>>>>> use HTTP, the appropriate verb is POST.
>>>>
>>>> I don't fully understand your comment. I think Hao was
>>> referring to the
>>> Web Method feature of SOAP 1.2. According to that feature,
>> an HTTP GET
>>> represents a particular binding of a SOAP Response MEP. So an
>>> HTTP GET used
>>> in this context is a legitimate realization of the type of
>> messages we
>>> address in this spec.
>>>>
>>>>> I suggest further that the plain XML reference is not one
>>> that has been
>>>>> endorsed by the group. Indeed I recall significant
>>> pushback on this
>>> one...
>>>>
>>>> I agree.
>>>>
>>>> Ugo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> <InterScan_Disclaimer.txt>
Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 14:19:59 GMT

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