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

Re: REST example

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:31:55 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200203061531.KAA21025@markbaker.ca>
To: jacek@systinet.com (Jacek Kopecky)
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
>  Mark,
>  your example is a fine use of REST as far as I can see, but 
> there is no SOAP there. I think I could see before how such an 
> example application could be done, although not so prettily.
>  What I wanted is an example where you would use SOAP together
> with the current web architecture. 

Oops, sorry.

But a simple answer would be to wrap all of that XML in a SOAP envelope.
The benefit of SOAP wouldn't be immediate, but perhaps later we might
want to make use of an extension header and use mustUnderstand to deploy
it.  Or, we may want to use intermediaries to do language conversion,
or routing to manage a more complex workflow, etc.. Having the actor
attribute would help immensely here.

>  It seems to me that taking REST+XML(+RDF) we don't need SOAP at
> all.

We *need* mandatory extensions, header targetting, and a better
documented end-to-end model.  Right now, SOAP is the only deployed
means of getting all that.

> On the other hand, it seems to me that SOAP is a thingie
> that does "in the old way" what the above do "in the web way".
>  Unless I'm shown the two can be combined simply and naturally, I
> won't be persuaded to leave the "tunneling" view, I'm afraid.

The "old way" and the "new way" can't be combined easily; they are
very different architectures.

It is part of our charter that we support the "old way", RPC, so I
can't ask that we make it go away (as much as I'd like to 8-).  All I
can ask is that we support both ways.

Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2002 10:27:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:19 UTC