- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 23:43:58 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- cc: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@Sun.COM>, "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Mark,
does this mean that we can make an HTTP method called 'SOAP' and
be done with all methods stuff? SOAP would be an HTTP method,
just not defined in the HTTP specification. SOAP would be able to
suit all currently defined MEPs. How good for the Web and for
interoperability would this be?
I agree with Marc that MEP and safeness are orthogonal, while
MEP and WebMethod are not, so we may solve this whole issue by
removing the WebMethod feature and adding a property of the HTTP
binding (or of the SOAP Response MEP) indicating the safeness of
the operation.
IOW, we need to control an aspect of the binding's message (the
method) so we MUST provide it with the necessary information.
Calling a required piece of information a 'feature' is IMHO a
misnomer. Calling it a property would be better.
Best regards,
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
http://www.systinet.com/
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Mark Baker wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 05:20:40PM +0100, Marc Hadley wrote:
> > > So is WebDAV PROPFIND (despite its flaws).
> > I thought we were discussing the SOAP/HTTP 1.1 binding, not the
> > SOAP/WebDAV binding.
>
> PROPFIND is an HTTP method. It's just not defined in the HTTP
> specification. There's no problem with that whatsoever. The Web Method
> feature supports other HTTP methods;
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part2/#webmethodstatemachine
>
> I think I've said all I have to say on this topic. Thanks.
>
> MB
>
Received on Sunday, 14 July 2002 17:44:00 UTC