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 11:41:58 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200202011641.LAA06108@markbaker.ca>
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com (Noah Mendelsohn)
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org, ylafon@w3.org (Yves Lafon)
> A SOAP message without a body seems 
> to me to be a SOAP message that doesn't do anything, but carries in its 
> headers lots of modifiers that would have applied if you were doing 
> anything.  Maybe I'm missing something, but that doesn't make sense to me.

GET does do something (retrieval).  It just does it without side-effect.

Suppose somebody defines a transaction-id SOAP header.  Wouldn't it be
a good idea to permit GET to be used within a transactional context?

Rich has defined a SOAP extension for authentication.  Why not use that
for GET too?

I believe the same goes for any header which makes sense on an idempotent,
side-effect free method.

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 11:39:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:18 UTC