- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 15:44:39 -0700
- To: eric.newcomer@iona.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
- CC: "'Jacek Kopecky'" <jacek@systinet.com>, "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Eric Newcomer wrote: > >... > > My big concern with the move toward HTTP specific binding for SOAP is losing > the ability to easily map to JMS, MQ Series, CORBA, J2EE, etc. If there is an HTTP binding then I think it has to follow the Web's rules of how to use HTTP. The W3C cannot produce recommendations and findings that disagree with each other. > ... I know Mark > Baker says we can do it anyway, and perhaps we can, but to me one of the big > questions is whether or not we are thinking about just sending the entire > message over the transport, and letting the "endpoints" decide what to do > with it, and how to interpret it. I agree with you that there is a tension between SOAP being a good player on top of HTTP and SOAP being "transport agnostic." If I were more involved in SOAP I would strongly argue that SOAP should choose one or the other because doing both creates an increasingly difficult-to-understand specification. But years ago it was decided to do both. I don't think that that is going to change now. I'll go further and say that I think that there is a tension between being a *web* protocol and being transport agnostic. Web protocols will naturally put URIs at the center of their design. That's tricky to do running over protocols that have no notion of URI. Paul Prescod
Received on Sunday, 16 June 2002 18:44:53 UTC