Little work has been done so far on the SOAP binding. Certainly, your suggestions fit with the way I see the SOAP binding moving forward, i.e. a transport agnostic binding, the MEP being selected via the WebMethod feature, this feature appearing either at the binding or (binding-)operation level. As far as fantasy is concerned (a unified HTTP-SOAP binding), this may set the bar too high. Jean-Jacques. Sergey Beryozkin wrote: [snip] > My understanding was that WSDL SOAP binding is a specific implementation of > an abstract SOAP HTTP binding as defined by SOAP Adjuncts (sorry if the > terminology is not right). Web Method Feature can tell whether SOAP HTTP > binding allows for SOAP Request-Response MEP or SOAP Response MEP > interaction style. > What I'm not sure about is that whether Web Method Feature can be applied in > a fine-grained fashion, on a per-operation basis or not. I thought it would > be applied to the whole binding instance. Another issue is that GET does not > allow for SOAP headers, so GET can't be used while SOAP Request-Response MEP > is active. > But if it were possible to use GET with headers [2] for idempotent > operations, then, may be, WSDL SOAP binding could provide for an abstract > SOAP HTTP binding + SOAP Request-Response MEP, with SOAP Response MET being > redundant, as SOAP Request-Response MEP could use GET and POST > interchangeably. Probably, this sounds terribly wrong :-), but if it were > possible at least in theory, then WSDL SOAP binding would look quite > similar to WSDL HTTP binding (at least with doc-lit style in place), and if > it were the case, then why don't merge the two ? Fantasy :-) > Just my 2c > Thanks > Sergey BeryozlomReceived on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 12:49:52 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:14:40 GMT