W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2003

What is a SOAP message; a proposed WSA view

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:13:03 -0500
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030226161303.F22821@www.markbaker.ca>

Just FYI, this proposal by Mike (which I'm sure Ws-arch will reach
concensus on) seems very relevant to XMLP.  The reference to Noah is
with respect to his "What is a SOAP message" question, which the
proposal seems to offer an answer for.


----- Forwarded message from "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com> -----

From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
To: "'www-ws-arch@w3.org '" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 06:52:37 -0700
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E405173A81@usmsg03.sagus.com
X-Mailing-List: <www-ws-arch@w3.org> archive/latest/4608
List-Id: <www-ws-arch.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Arnold [mailto:Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:27 AM
> To: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org '
> Subject: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility
> > 
> > Which says to me that sending a SOAP envelope with HTTP PUT means
> > something different than sending it with POST (and any other
> > application protocol method, for that matter).

> If "means something different" affects the semantics of the SOAP
> exchange at the application level, I think you've just opened
> a large can of trout. Suppose I want to write a web service which
> can support client interactions over HTTP, BXXP, JMS, or RFC1149
> avian transport. SOAP over JMS (or SOAP over carrier pigeon) doesn't
> have any notion of PUT or POST. 

Does anyone on the WG agree with Mark here?  Does anyone interpret Noah
Mendelsohn's comment to XMLP as implying what Mark seems to think it
implies?  I think [not wearing my chair hat] that a SOAP message delivered
with POST, PUT, or carrier pigeon should  have the same semantics.  

I'd like to drain this trout pond.  I propose making sure that the glossary
definition of "protocol independence" includes the concept that a Web
service invocation has the same effect irrespective of the protocol or
protocol-level features used to transmit it, and to action the editors to
use Dave Orchard's  discussion of "visibility" in the document and glossary
where appropriate.

That way we can move on, and Mark or whomever can raise a formal issue that
we will record and address for consideration by others later in the W3C
process.  Of course, if someone on the WG wants to discuss this further, we
can do that.

I'm sure this will be seen as another sign of "the management" exerting
schedule, but I think of it as just taking down the "Gone Fishin'" sign off
the office  door. :-)

----- End forwarded message -----

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 16:09:46 UTC

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