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

Re: One-way messaging in SOAP 1.2

From: S. Alexander Jacobson <alex@vo.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:33:15 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
cc: xml-dist-app <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.43.0201291028141.1400-100000@gandolph.ASGARD.jms>
Either way, if I write a method in my favorite
language and then choose to expose it via SOAP,
how much do I need to modify my code to do so?

It sounds like you are moving towards a world of
methods designed explicitly for SOAP over HTTP
and that if I then wanted to write a SOAP over
SMTP method, I would have to modify my code yet
again.


-Alex-

___________________________________________________________________
S. Alexander Jacobson                   i2x Media
1-212-787-1914 voice                    1-603-288-1280 fax

On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Christopher Ferris wrote:

> Let me be explicitly clear then. What I meant
> by (say a Servlet or CGI) was not meant to infer
> the Servlet or CGI implementation layer, but
> an *instance* of a Servlet or CGI that in effect
> *is* the implementation of the binding.
>
> Thus, neither the Servlet nor CGI *implementation*
> need understand the semantics inferred, just the
> layer which binds the protocol (HTTP) to the SOAP
> node.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> S. Alexander Jacobson wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Christopher Ferris wrote:
> >
> >>However, if it is the responsibility of
> >>the layer above the HTTP processing (say a servlet or CGI)
> >>that is effectively the implementation of the HTTP binding,
> >>that is responsible for interpretation of the new header,
> >>and responsible for returning an HTTP 204 No Content response
> >>to the sender. That (IMO) would be perfectly acceptable.
> >>
> >
> > To be HTTP correct, the CGI/Servlet implementation
> > would need to know enough about the semantics of
> > the underlying operation to know whether to send
> > a "202 Accepted" or a "204 No Content" response.
> >
> > I think the choices are:
> > 1. have the envelope give a hint to the recipient
> > 2. have SOAP methods only return one or the other
> > 	(the response for certain SOAP methods is
> > 	preset when the user installs them in the
> > 	CGI implementaiton)
> > 3. give the SOAP methods excessive awareness of
> >    HTTP.
> > 4. only return 204 if the response times out and
> > it is clearly an asynch response (ugly!)
> > 5....?
> >
> > None of these seem particularly elegant, but I
> > would choose #2.
> >
> > -Alex-
> > ___________________________________________________________________
> > S. Alexander Jacobson                   i2x Media
> > 1-212-787-1914 voice                    1-603-288-1280 fax
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 10:32:13 GMT

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