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

RE: [i95, i22] - Proposal for clarifying use of SOAPAction

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 07:57:52 -0700
To: "'Doug Davis'" <dug@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D0297CBD0@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

I absolutely agree that thinking about a routing extension or module (I
tend to call them SOAP bubbles) as being one of the things that we add
is a great idea. This would also allow us to provide support for
intermediaries, bidirectional message paths etc which a single HTTP
header field doesn't provide and I don't think the overhead would be
that bad.

This was discussed at the recent Web Services WS [1] - in fact, I wrote
a position paper on the very topic of SOAP routing [2]. At the same WS
it was proposed that work on such modules would be part of a
yet-to-be-created WG. However, before we can get there we (this group)
has to settle as many issues as possible on our spec so that we provide
a solid foundation for these modules.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/01/WSWS 
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/03/WSWS-popa/paper41

>  I understand your desire to not restrict or mandate how
>the SOAPAction header should be use (don't agree yet, but I
>understand it 8-)   May people like to use the SOAPAction
>header for routing, I believe, because it allows them to
>route w/o having to parse the XMLP message, how do you
>feel about adding (to the spec or as a well known extension)
>an attribute to the SOAP Envelope that contains the routing 
>information?  This would allow people to route with the 
>minimal about of parsing but still preserve the openness of 
>the SOAPAction header. Others - would this limited parsing 
>still be too much? -Dug
Received on Friday, 4 May 2001 12:02:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:13 UTC