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

Re: A tale of two bindings

From: David Crowley <dcrowley@scitegic.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 16:58:48 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20010724165412.00a99cc0@pop.business.earthlink.net>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
At 11:48 AM 7/24/2001, Mark Baker wrote:
> > The list of differences is completely ridiculous.  I can write
> > tunnelling-oriented SOAP right now, and the only difference between what
> > I use and your "application semantic" binding is whether faults come
> > back using 500 or 200.
>
>And the use of port 80, at a minimum.  There could very well have
>been other major differences, as my tunnel-binding wasn't completely
>specified as you may have noticed.

I didn't think port 80 was a crucial part of the HTTP protocol, it's just 
the default if no specific port is specified.  The HTTP protocol works fine 
over many other ports, the binding shouldn't be so specific that it fails 
if its not port 80.  The same binding _should_ work for HTTPS which by 
default is carried over a different port.  I'm scared that this binding 
between SOAP and HTTP youre suggesting is getting wound up so tight you 
will never be able to separate the two.

David
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2001 19:58:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT