W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2002

Re: Issue 133, and permitting no body

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:14:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200202011414.JAA04448@markbaker.ca>
To: ylafon@w3.org (Yves Lafon)
Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com (Noah Mendelsohn), xml-dist-app@w3.org
Yves,

I'm not sure I follow.  Where does the urlencoding of the SOAP message
come in, in this example?

> > Encoding a SOAP envelope in a URI is using GET to tunnel that envelope,
> > and isn't respecting GET semantics (which are "give me a representation
> > of the resource identified by the Request-URI").
> 
> Well, having the envelope sent as a parameter is OK.
> Another way to look at the GET method would be to have inbound one-way
> messaging, but you need to have a way to identify that you will get
> something without a body.
> 
> An example would be to do a POST to register a listener to a resource, you
> want to listen to the weather in "foo" city
> 
> POST /register
> <blah>
> 
> HTTP/1.1 303 OK
> Location: http://www.example.com/weather/foocountry/foocity
> 
> And then you get "events" (ie, weather information) using GET method. Of
> course it can be cached and ETag or Date revalidation can be used to
> detect any new "event".
> It is clear in this case that those GETs are idempotent methods.


MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Friday, 1 February 2002 09:12:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT