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

Re: Issue 133, and permitting no body

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:55:43 -0800
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020201125542.G27266@mnot.net>

On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 03:18:03PM -0500, Mark Baker wrote:
> > I like this! I can see four possibilities (not mutually exclusive);
> > 
> > 1) GET w/ SOAP envelope serialised in URI, response carries envelope
> > 2) GET w/o any SOAP envelope, response carries envelope
> > 3) POST w/ SOAP envelope, 303 See Other, #2
> Hmm. #2 uses an envelope on a response that presumably isn't a fault.
> AFAIK, we haven't defined any meaning for this.

Not sure if I see the distinction (maybe I've been out of SOAP-land
too long); #2 is just a SOAP response to a HTTP GET. The binding
would have to be defined, yes, but I don't know that this is a
special kind of response, is it?

> #3 is ok, but doesn't address issue 133 and the use of GET for
> side-effect free operations.

I'd characterise #3 as having side effects; it's creating a resource
that one can get the results of the POST from. Yes, it doesn't fully
address the issue, but it does mesh nicely with the Web architecture
IMHO; it allows one to make subsequent requests for representations
without side effects.

> > So, my money is on #2&3. I'd also note that the entail the least
> > amount of work for the WG.
> Just to reiterate, I'm not suggesting we go ahead and build a GET
> binding right now.  My suggestion to allow no body in an envelope
> was in case we wanted to define a GET binding this way at some
> later date.
> As I said earlier, we could just address issue 133 with an
> explanation of how we only bind to POST, and how the binding
> respects POST semantics by making proper use of HTTP response
> codes.

I understand. Actually, I'd like to see the WG enable some limited
but practical functionality for GET, so that rudimentary caching can
be realised quickly. 

An argument could be made that people will be forced to misuse the
Web architecture until a GET binding is provided, by using POST to
make requests with no side effects, thereby meaning that 133 isn't
addressed by just defining a POST binding. I'm not sure such an
argument would stick, but it's worth a try ;)

Mark Nottingham
Received on Friday, 1 February 2002 15:55:47 UTC

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