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 <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 08:39:38 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D0297CBE3@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>, "Jake Savin" <jake@userland.com>, "Painter, Philip" <Philip.Painter@compaq.com>, "Daniel Barclay" <Daniel.Barclay@digitalfocus.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

>Thanks for the info and the link. I read the soapbuilders post 
>which answered my other question; 'How does SOAPAction relate 
>to the request URI?', answer; 'It doesn't'

Yup :)

>I'm tempted to build a table of SOAPAction usage vs. 
>implementation. Categories off the top of my head would be; 
>dispatching ( figuring out which 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?

Good start - can we annotate the table with whether we think it is good
or bad?

I would say that "fixed" is orthogonal to the others as this is about
what the value is rather than how it is being used. The opposite to
"fixed" would then be "varying as a function of the message type". While
both are valid, I would strongly suggest the more stable (or fixed).

Fundamentally we cannot control what people are going to use any of the
parameters for in their internal implementation but we can strongly
encourage people to follow the basic Web rules which have been brought
up on the threads of SOAPAction.

I would, however, like to discourage the use of SOAPAction for routing
of messages as this is not the place to put that information - the
destination of an HTTP message is the request-URI.

Henrik

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001May/0068.html
Received on Monday, 7 May 2001 12:13:56 GMT

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