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

Re: [getf] Proposal for Web-friendly representation of RPC's in SOAP

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 16:31:04 -0400
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020530163104.D10964@www.markbaker.ca>

Just wanted to add my 2c.

On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 05:34:15PM +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> Ok... I was really wanting to understand you specific use "additional
> parameters" in:
> <quote>
> That is, it is not the case in HTTP that the entity-body always
> can be used to carry additional parameters, it is up to the particular
> method.
> </quote>
> I was wanting to understand whether you were talking about the availability
> of an entity-body on an HTTP request, or if you were talking about
> constraints on what such an entity body is allowed to contain/be used for.

I believe he meant the latter.

POST's definition allows some wiggle room for introducing a hook for
the SOAP processing model to dispatch from; that you can introduce a
piece of software (dispatched from SOAPAction in 1.1 and the media
type in the 1.2 default binding) to do the SOAP-specific processing
on the headers, before handing it off to do the HTTP POST for the
SOAP body.

PUT's definition doesn't allow this wiggle room; what's in the body is
the desired state of the resource identified by the Request-URI.

If we cared, we could do PUT with SOAP by defining a new HTTP method,
"SOAP-PUT".  It would provide the hook.

Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 16:35:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:20 UTC