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

Re: http binding

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:20:34 +0100
Message-ID: <3F9FBEA2.5010706@crf.canon.fr>
To: Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@zandar.com>
Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, paul.downey@bt.com, www-ws-desc@w3.org

I think a likely (?) direction is that each SOAP binding will indicate 
the (SOAP) MEP in use. This MEP will need to be compatible with the WSDL 
pattern for the interface. An alternative would be to set the value for 
the SOAP WebMethod property.

I suspect 1. and 2. are actually meant for the HTTP binding, not the 
SOAP binding?


Sergey Beryozkin wrote:

> Would it be possible to use an optional attribute on SOAP Http
> Binding for a SOAP Request-Response MEP ? Such an attribute could
> state that a given operation wants to use GET instead of POST.
> Perhaps, there also should be an agorithm which would URL encode
> (like the way shown in SOAP primer) query parameters to make this
> given URL unique, otherwise, it's not clear what benefit would GET
> requests on a single handler URL bring.
> If all the above were possible than one issue is that GET and headers
> are not friends at the moment. So, may be these 2 approaches can help:
> 1. Just tunnel GET over POST when headers are required, similar to
> the way suggested at [1]
> 2. Use GET with headers [2]
> Approach 2 may help in having a single HTTP binding which would suit
> all uses, for SOAP and not for SOAP
> I may be out of sync with what is being discussed here, apologies if
> so
 > Thanks
 > Sergey Beryozkin
> [1] http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/DifferentlyAbledClients [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Jan/thread.html#416
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 08:20:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:45 UTC