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

RE: SOAPAction Proposal

From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 22:53:47 -0400
To: "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com>
Cc: henrikn@microsoft.com, marting@develop.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE820FED7.6B835821-ON85256A46.000FEDB3@lotus.com>
Doug Davis writes:

>> I guess I'd like to know what would be 
>> missing from SOAP if the SOAPAction 
>> header did go away? 

In a nutshell, the ability to learn something about the message without 
having to crack the XML.  Now, as to exactly what that something is, there 
seems to be disagreement, which makes it look a bit like an answer in 
search of a question, but it is at least potentially of great value.. 

My opinion is that whoever designs SOAP bindings should have the lattitude 
to include out-of-band from the envelope itself information or hints when 
performance considerations dictate that such information be accessible w/o 
a generalized XML parse.  SOAPAction for HTTP in particular existed before 
I got involved in SOAP, and I have no strong feelings pro or con as to 
whether it should exist or how it should be used.  I think we should ask 
the question I just stated:  what do users of an HTTP binding need to get 
at w/o cracking the XML.  If there is such info, then we should have HTTP 
headers.  My understanding is that the SOAPAction hint was introduced as 
an aid to efficient implementation of firewalls;  as already stated, it 
can only be used in such a capacity in situations where the firewall 
trusts the SOAP implementation to eventually do the check that nobody 
spoofed the SOAPAction.

Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Monday, 7 May 2001 22:57:18 UTC

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