W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2003

RE: WS-Addressing and R085

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 13:54:33 -0400
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E405773B9A@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 10:00 AM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WS-Addressing and R085
> Not at all.  If you accept that a SOAP envelope saying "orderBook"
> means the same thing over HTTP POST as SMTP DATA, then you must also
> accept that it means the same thing over HTTP PUT.

I accept that.  I also accept that a (hypothetical) SOAP binding that uses
PUT to simply transfer messages to a queue identified by a URI rather than
overwrite the queue [the issue discussed in the messages cited, IIRC] is
probably not a good fit with HTTP's defined semantics.  But that's an issue
of the details of a binding from SOAP to a "move bits around" [dodging the
transport vs transfer issue] protocol, not a issue of whether application
protocol neutrality is a good thing in principle. 

This is probably a meta-issue better suited for www-ws, but it seems as
though you don't believe that there's a middle ground between "REST is the
alpha and omega of distrubuted computing"  and "REST is nonsense that should
be ignored."  I believe that SOAP 1.2 has staked out a very useful middle
ground where it is/
Received on Monday, 14 April 2003 13:54:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:42 UTC