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

RE: Issue #12: HTTP Status Codes 500 v 200

From: Kasi, Jay <jay.kasi@commerceone.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 16:19:03 -0700
Message-ID: <63751F9A4BBBD411A6E000508BA5831F024492C0@c1plenaexm03.commerceone.com>
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, dkgunter@lbl.gov
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Mark,

Mark Baker wrote: 

"In order for protocol A to be a layer on top of protocol B, the
interface to developers (i.e. a library) should expose only protocol A
semantics.  With using SOAP over HTTP, you as a developer are using HTTP
semantics (specifically POST).  They are exposed to you.  Contrast this
with HTTP over TCP - do you as an HTTP developer know or care when an IP
packet arrives out of order?  You don't, because HTTP *is* a layer on
top of TCP.  SOAP is not a layer on top of HTTP."

SOAP does not really talk about APIs as far as I understand. There is no
reason 
why an API could not be written as the interface to a SOAP processor or a
message
service handler (MSH to borrow an ebXML TRP term) that does not expose the
HTTP POST. 
I think the way APIs are exposed is a poor way to decide if a protocol is a
layer. 
I think SOAP is a protocol layer in its own right that happens to have a
HTTP binding defined (among potentially many other bindings). Incidentally I
think ebXML TRP is 
a protocol layer also built on top of SOAP and MIME.

Based on this I do think HTTP status codes finding its way into SOAP is
disturbing.  
Received on Friday, 8 June 2001 19:19:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:01 GMT