W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > July 2001

Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding

From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:51:33 -0400
Message-ID: <3B55CCA5.1433B864@east.Sun.COM>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
CC: XML Distributed Applications List <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

IMHO, this "loose" specification approach will lead to all manner of 
interop problems. 



A loose specification leads to even looser interpretation
Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > In other words, I think we should allow SOAP applications to use HTTP
> > with all the bells and whistles that HTTP provides including using all
> > status codes and header fields. In other words, let HTTP be HTTP :)
> What I'm hearing, then, is that the HTTP binding (and bindings in
> general) should be expansive; e.g.,
> * SOAP envelopes can be encapsulated in request messages which have a
>   method which permits an entity body (i.e., POST, PUT)
> * SOAP envelopes can be encapsulated in response messsages which have
>   a status code which permits an entity body (i.e., 200, 400, 500,
>   etc.)
> Thinking aloud, I'd be happy to take this approach *from a
> theoretical standpoint* (more about that later) if we specify that
> transport-related underlying protocol mechanisms (e.g., method,
> status code, etc.) have no effect on how the SOAP message is
> processed; i.e, their semantics are used to get the HTTP message (in
> this case) around, not to hint or affect SOAP processing.
> This is because if there were a relationship between protocol
> mechanisms and message processing, there would need to be a mapping
> between them, and this could get ugly quickly.
> The upshot of this is that the HTTP binding wouldn't specify ANY
> methods or status codes to use (except for the constraints as above),
> but merely reference the specification.  The onus is on
> implementations to assure that they can handle any messages sent
> their way by a particular binding.
> This is a fairly radical change to specifying particular status
> codes for particular SOAP messages, but I'm warming to it.
> Thoughts?
> --
> Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
> Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA)
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2001 13:51:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:14 UTC