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

RE: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: 05 Sep 2002 09:50:01 +0200
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: Stuart Williams <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@w3.org>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-Id: <1031212202.360.19.camel@krava>

On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 23:31, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> Stuart Williams writes:
> >> FWIW I think that in responding [1] to the issue raised
> >> by the TAG the XML-WG clearly paved the way to enabling
> >> and encouraging the so-called RESTful use of SOAP bound
> >> to HTTP. Equally, I don't think that the WG has took
> >> the position that such use is the only legitimate use
> >> over SOAP/HTTP. I think the 'classic' ways of using
> >> SOAP remain available, but there is (strong)
> >> encouragement to make resources visible 'on-the-Web'
> +1.  I agree with Stuart's analysis and his conclusion.

 My view is that you don't need SOAP to make resources visible on the
web and that you actually don't get any benefit from using SOAP over
HTTP in the way HTTP was meant to be. HTTP (and REST) transfers resource
representations, a term that at least to me doesn't imply any commands.
On the other hand, SOAP has a processing model and every mustUnderstand
or understood header is a command to be executed at the receiver - the
client (when a SOAP message is transferred as a result of GET or POST).
 This difference in views of what is transferred makes me think that
SOAP over HTTP, although possible, is not really usable in any real
 I will be very glad if I'm presented with a counterexample - "fighting"
agains so many bright people makes me nervous that I'm probably wrong
and I don't know how.
 Best regards

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 03:50:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:21 UTC