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

Re: XML Protocol: Proposals to address SOAPAction header

From: Dave Winer <dave@userland.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:27:39 -0700
Message-ID: <12be01c0f2bd$57fcf430$33a1dc40@murphy>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, <eamon.otuathail@clipcode.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
This is so simple.

1. HTTP is a good way to do SOAP.

2. If there's no header to go by, a router has to read the payload.

3. In a normal HTTP server much of the traffic is not SOAP.

4. In the real world, which I hope is what we're talking about, you can't
run the payload of a request through an XML parser. It's a waste of CPU
cycles.

5. So we built systems up from SOAPAction. Shoot us.

6. Don't break us.

7. Thanks.

Dave


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
To: <eamon.otuathail@clipcode.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: XML Protocol: Proposals to address SOAPAction header


> Eamon O'Tuathail wrote:
> >
> > >> It is important that the SOAPAction URI be preserved between
gateways.
> >
> > SOAPAction relates to SOAP over **HTTP** - why should a different
binding to
> > forced to carry it when it certainly is not needed by this other
binding?
>
> Exactly my point.  If the syntax were not a new HTTP header, but instead
> a parameter on the media type, then it would be much more easily
> *considered* reusable between protocols.
>
> MB
>
Received on Monday, 11 June 2001 17:28:42 GMT

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