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 18:35:21 -0500
Message-ID: <38C986B9.150B4349@canada.sun.com>
To: Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org, devel@casbah.org
[btw, I'm not signed up for soap-discuss, so feel free to forward
my posts there yourself]

Ken MacLeod wrote:
> XML messaging does what HTTP does, just differently because no one
> wants to mess with HTTP's installed base (i.e. if it doesn't use only
> GET/PUT/POST it probably ain't gonna happen).  One of the most common
> ways to implement XML messaging is to actually tunnel those messages
> on top of HTTP's POST (and less often, GET and PUT).

Sure.  I think POST makes most sense for messaging, since its
semantics are to insert a document into a container, like a message
into a channel.

> XML messaging often suggests many different types of methods than

And HTTP supports extension methods for that reason.  But what
methods did you have in mind?  Are you sure they're necessary?
The standard HTTP methods are pretty powerful. (see below)

> Scenario one recognizes HTTP's "method" field and proposes we use it.

I assume by "method field" you mean just using your own method.

> Scenario two recognizes that that's never gonna happen, so let's
> simply declare a new successor (I use SOAP as an example).

Why won't that happen?  Both cases require the server to be
upgraded in some sense.

> I refer to a third scenario in this message above, that of tunneling a
> messaging protocol through HTTP.  That's simply a hack, a very, very
> common hack, but a hack none the less.

Why would you need to tunnel a message protocol over HTTP?  Why
not just send the XML directly 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?
> URL munging as a different technique of passing what "method" (action)
> I want the server to perform.  It's a hack that could be worse than
> tunneling.

Inserting a chat message into a chat channel is perfectly
aligned with HTTP POST semantics.  What other action do you
need the server to perform?  Can that be represented by
posting a different XML document to a sub-URI? eg.


The documents posted to that URI would represent different
adminstration actions one could take on the channel.

Received on Friday, 10 March 2000 18:34:12 UTC

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