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

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

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 10:21:11 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D0297CCD8@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Kasi, Jay" <jay.kasi@commerceone.com>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, <dkgunter@lbl.gov>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Neither SOAP nor HTTP do talk about APIs and I doubt that Mark has APIs
in mind but that doesn't mean that HTTP doesn't expose a set of
services.

HTTP status codes do not find their way into SOAP - they are in HTTP and
are to be used when doing HTTP. SOAP by itself knows nothing about HTTP
and when not used in combination with HTTP, HTTP status codes are of
course not used.

These arguments have been discussed over and over including about HTTP
and layering relates. I would encourage you to look through the archives
to find these mails for further explanations. 

Henrik

>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 Saturday, 9 June 2001 13:23:30 GMT

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