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: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:46:53 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200202021646.LAA14582@markbaker.ca>
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com (Noah Mendelsohn)
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org (xml-dist-app), ylafon@w3.org (ylafon)
> It may not be clear why I think this is so important:  applications will 
> want to do the same SOAP calls to a variety of endpoints, without being 
> much aware of the binding.  getStockQuote bound to HTTP may well be a GET. 
>  getStockQuote bound to MQSeries may be very different on the wire.  The 
> point is, the application wants a fair degree of transparency in the SOAP 
> envelope, and if applicable the WSDL and or UDDI.  Using a different body 
> convention (I.e. eliminating it) doesn't feel right to me at all.

Well, this is one of the main problems with this view of SOAP from a Web
architecture perspective; requiring that "getStockQuote" be understood
by both ends of the pipe necessarily means that a priori communication
cannot occur (without signalling this in some manner), and that Web
architecture is not being adherred to.

Web architecture works primarily by *limiting* the understanding
required by each participant in the chain to a small but generic set of
meanings, primarily GET, PUT, POST, and DELETE.  This is how a priori
communication can occur with just an HTTP URI, because the URI scheme
indicates the supported interface.

Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Saturday, 2 February 2002 11:44:46 UTC

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