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

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

From: Dick Brooks <dick@8760.com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 07:55:46 -0500
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>, "Jake Savin" <jake@userland.com>, "Painter, Philip" <Philip.Painter@compaq.com>, <frystyk@microsoft.com>, "'Daniel Barclay'" <Daniel.Barclay@digitalfocus.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Martin writes:
>I'm tempted to build a table of SOAPAction usage vs. implementation.
>Categories off the top of my head would be; dispatching ( figuring out
>piece of code to run ), routing ( figuring out where the message should
>go ), filtering ( figuring out whether the message should be allowed
>through ), fixed ( some fixed value, e.g. ebxml ). Anyone got any others?
>Would such a table be useful?

The ebXML implementations I'm aware of use the SOAPAction to
"invoke" an ebXML aware handler. I think of this as
dispatching, as opposed to "fixed".

I think there are two distinct concepts at work here,
"how SOAPAction is used" and "what SOAPAction contains". I believe
the contents of SOAPAction are defined by
the implementer of a SOAP server, or in the case of ebXML, by formal
specification. How SOAPAction is used becomes a matter for the implementer
to decide, and I believe in many cases this will be relative to the
POST request-URI (in the HTTP case).

In other words, if the request-URI is a message broker service
then SOAPAction may be used for dispatching. If, on the other hand, the
request-URI is a specific, message aware handler then SOAPAction may not
serve any purpose (e.g. /servlet/stockquery).

I think of it this way:

Usage			Contents
------------	-------------------------
Dispatching		determined by implementer, or formal spec
Routing		dynamic value
Filtering 		fixed value

Dick Brooks (ebXML liaison)
Received on Monday, 7 May 2001 08:46:30 UTC

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