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

RE: [soapbuilders] Re: XML Protocol: Proposals to address SOAPAction header

From: Matt Long <mlong@phalanxsys.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 22:42:30 -0500
To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004c01c0f15f$61009870$34fff6d0@phalanxsys.com>
If you fully utilize the WSDL server-side, an import of a service with "XXX"
SOAPAction is going to be supported.   I do not see this as any problem,
unless implementors being using the same URI for all services. Which
incidentally, is the same as elimination of SOAPAction from a WSDL
perspective.  The Phalanx implementation currently supports importation of a
WSDL with "XXX" SOAPAction and has no issue with the example described,
which is by design.

I have trouble believing that "down the road" any nomial interoperable SOAP
stack is not going to support the same.  Yes, some current stacks *may* have
issues with a straight import, but that's part of the learning curve of what
each independent stack chooses to support and in what manner.

-Matt



> -----Original Message-----
> From: graham glass [mailto:graham-glass@mindspring.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 8:07 PM
> To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; Simon Fell;
> xml-dist-app@w3.org; xmlp-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Re: XML Protocol: Proposals to address
> SOAPAction header
>
>
> hi dave,
>
> whether you publish WSDL or not, there are currently a set
> of values that your SOAP servers expect to be present, which
> frontier has defined and controls. this is what i meant by closed.
>
> now imagine that another company defines a standard WSDL
> which sets SOAPAction to "FOOBAR" and it becomes the great
> new standard for desktop publishing. if a frontier SOAP
> server wants to host a web service that supports this
> standard, it will have to support whatever SOAPAction was
> defined by the standard WSDL, regardless of whether frontier
> ever supports the publication or consumption of WSDL files.
>
> since you have no control over the SOAPAction field that
> was defined in the standard, your SOAP server cannot be
> built to assume anything about the SOAPAction field, unless
> of course you are not interested in building a general
> purpose server.
>
> does this make sense?
>
> cheers,
> graham
>
> p.s. no offence was meant by "small, closed"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@userland.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 7:48 PM
> To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; Simon Fell;
> xml-dist-app@w3.org; xmlp-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Re: XML Protocol: Proposals to address
> SOAPAction header
>
>
> We're talking about SOAP 1.1, last I heard,  we don't publish
> WSDL. Maybe
> you should switch perspectives and imagine a network without
> WSDL. About
> Frontier being a "small, closed system" I have no idea what
> you're talking
> about but I sure don't like the way it sounds. Dave
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "graham glass" <graham-glass@mindspring.com>
> To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>; "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen"
> <henrikn@microsoft.com>; "Simon Fell" <soap@zaks.demon.co.uk>;
> <xml-dist-app@w3.org>; <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 5:48 PM
> Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Re: XML Protocol: Proposals to address
> SOAPAction header
>
>
> > hi guys,
> >
> > my issue is still exactly the same as it was 3 months ago.
> >
> > based on the current definition, the owner of a SOAP server
> > cannot count on the SOAPAction having any particular meaning
> > unless the owner was also the one that generated the WSDL.
> >
> > this is fine in a closed, small system, such as frontier
> > publishing WSDL for its own service and specifying which
> > SOAPAction it wants, but seems to lose its value when WSDL
> > is published by vendor X and then an implementation of the
> > service is hosted on vendor Y's SOAP server.
> >
> > from my own perspective, if GLUE hosts a web service
> > that implements a WSDL published by IBM and IBM decides to
> > make the SOAPAction "FOOBAR", what can GLUE do this with
> > value? can it filter based on it? i guess i could, if i
> > manually program the HTTP server with all the various
> > SOAPActions from different WSDLs that i want to filter.
> >
> > is that the intent - that the SOAPAction fields are
> > manually entered into some kind of firewall software?
> >
> > can i route based on it? no, not if IBM chooses a value
> > that is not particularly meaningful. i have no control
> > over what value they use if they happen to set the standard
> > for that particular web service definition.
> >
> > am i totally missing something here?
> >
> > i've still yet to see where the SOAPAction value can be
> > useful in an open environment where the publisher of the
> > WSDL can basically set it to whatever value they want.
> >
> > cheers,
> > graham
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jake Savin [mailto:jake@userland.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 7:21 PM
> > To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; Simon Fell; xml-dist-app@w3.org;
> > xmlp-comments@w3.org
> > Cc: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [soapbuilders] Re: XML Protocol: Proposals to address
> > SOAPAction header
> >
> >
> > Hi Henrik,
> >
> > From my point of view, this is a *much* more attractive
> clarification of
> the
> > use of SOAPAction, than the previous proposals (the
> deprecation or removal
> > of SOAPAction).
> >
> > It addresses some of the ambiguities of the current
> wording, as well as
> > avoiding breaking existing implementations and services.
> >
> > I endorse it.
> >
> > -Jake
> >
> > on 6/9/01 10:27 AM, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen at
> henrikn@microsoft.com wrote:
> >
> > > Note that there has been work going on in clarifying the
> SOAPAction use
> > > - I would be interested in hearing what you think about that
> > >
> > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001May/0053.html
> > >
> > > Henrik
> > >
> > >> If A & B are the only choices they i'd pick B, A is just an
> > >> interop mess waiting to happen.
> > >>
> > >> However, SOAPAction in its current (i.e. SOAP 1.1) form, does
> > >> serve a useful purpose, my only complaint is that the spec
> > >> doesn't describe very well how to use it.
> > >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Received on Saturday, 9 June 2001 23:43:11 GMT

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