W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2000

Re: The Two Way Web

From: Mark Baker <mark.baker@Canada.Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:33:05 -0500
Message-ID: <38C95C01.9C0737AB@canada.sun.com>
To: Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org, soap@discuss.develop.com, devel@casbah.org, Dave Winer <dave@userland.com>, "Box, Don" <dbox@develop.com>
Ken MacLeod wrote:
> I had an insight last night that makes me agree with you completely.

Oooh, goodie! 8-)

> The only problem is one of protocol layering.  It's actually DWhite
> that is comparible to HTTP, not DWChat (more on why in a moment).

Yes, and I apologize for not giving your proposal a thorough look
over before commenting on it.

> problem is that the client is using a single API, to have the API
> automagically switch-in HTTP for some requests and XML messaging for
> others seems fragile.

What's the different between the use of HTTP and "XML messaging"?

>But, for the moment let's assume that that is
> exactly what happens, this is the new API:
>         Returns a fully populated copy of the node at URL.
>     HTTP:HEAD(URL)   (replaces DWhite:checkNode())
>         Returns status info about URL.
> The semantics of HTTP:HEAD() are a little different from
> DWhite:checkNode(), but that's not a big deal.
> With that, it's obvious how to scale up to WebDAV and DRP.  Verra
> nice!
> Now, back to the protocols.  Rather than try to mix the two, it makes
> sense to pick one or the other (or both, seperately).

By "the two", you mean HTTP and SOAP?

>  Scenario One:
> If one were to use HTTP methods to implement this, it begs the
> question about the purpose of SOAP:Envelope at all when running over
> HTTP.  Scenario Two: SOAP:Envelope _becomes_ HTTP-NG and the HTTP 1.1
> header goes away.
> Comments on that?

Sorry, but I'm not following.  I don't see SOAP in the picture
at all.  I just see your XML documents travelling over HTTP.
What value-add is there to SOAP when your application's XML docs
are travelling right over HTTP?

> Now to DWChat. getMessages() and postMessage() are both "actions" that
> do something much different than simply "get" a value or offer data to
> a function (POST).
> In scenario one from above, that would be:
>   DWChat:getMessages http://mysite.org/chat_channel_1 HTTP/1.1
>   DWChat:postMessage http://mysite.org/chat_channel_1 HTTP/1.1
> Note that some URL munging could be applied here to achieve the same
> effect with GET/POST, but I don't think that scales well.

URL munging to avoid caching?

> Scenario two (SOAP is HTTP-NG) turns it inside out and would be
> applied similarly.

Sorry, still not following you.  8-(

Received on Friday, 10 March 2000 15:32:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:09 UTC