W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > August 2004

Re: request for clarification of SOAP/HTTP binding in SOAP 1.2

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 15:01:58 -0400
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFD404B50A.A1C149E8-ON85256EE5.0052D40C@lotus.com>

Finally back from vacation and working through back email.  Not sure 
whether this reply is still helpful, but...

Sanjiva Weerawarana asks:

> The WSDL WG is interested in the possibility of supporting a WSDL 
> binding for SOAP/HTTP that supports asynchronous responses (for WSDL
> in-out MEPs). This note is NOT a formal request from the WS-Desc WG
> but rather a personal one from me as a member of that group.
> 
> I'd like to understand the precise semantics of how a SOAP request-
> response MEP is bound to HTTP in the SOAP/HTTP binding of SOAP 
> 1.2 [1]. Is it the case that [1] states that that the request
> message be sent on the HTTP request message and that the response
> must come on the HTTP response? 

For the SOAP 1.2 HTTP, the answer is "yes" as far as I know.  It's quite 
clear that the MEP response message is mapped to the HTTP response.

> Alternatively, does that binding
> permit me to send the SOAP request message on one HTTP request-response
> (maybe with the response saying 201 OK for example) and then for
> the originating SOAP node to receive the response by the other node
> doing a 2nd HTTP POST to it? (For which the the originator may HTTP
> respond with 201 OK, for example.)

My view is: the MEP allows this, but the current definition of the HTTP 
binding does not, as it provides no specification allowing for either the 
201 tentative response or more especially for the 2nd post.  The binding 
is extensible in its use of media-types, but not as I read it in the 
number of round trips per logical request response.  IMO, you could invent 
your own HTTP binding that would be compatible with the standard MEP, but 
it would be a different binding.  Indeed, one of the reasons we made a 
separate layer for MEP's was in the hope that many applications would be 
coded with knowledge of the MEP, but not necessarily the binding providing 
the transport.  There is, of course, the question of whether your "2 round 
trip" approach is a good use of HTTP, but I'm not aware of anything in 
SOAP per se that would prohibit your creation of such a binding.

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
07/20/2004 10:48 AM

 
        To:     <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Re: request for clarification of SOAP/HTTP binding in SOAP 1.2



I'm not sure how to interpret the deafening silence .. should I 
interpret it as "take it any way I want"??

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 7:40 PM
Subject: request for clarification of SOAP/HTTP binding in SOAP 1.2


> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> The WSDL WG is interested in the possibility of supporting a WSDL 
> binding for SOAP/HTTP that supports asynchronous responses (for WSDL
> in-out MEPs). This note is NOT a formal request from the WS-Desc WG
> but rather a personal one from me as a member of that group.
> 
> I'd like to understand the precise semantics of how a SOAP request-
> response MEP is bound to HTTP in the SOAP/HTTP binding of SOAP 
> 1.2 [1]. Is it the case that [1] states that that the request
> message be sent on the HTTP request message and that the response
> must come on the HTTP response? Alternatively, does that binding
> permit me to send the SOAP request message on one HTTP request-response
> (maybe with the response saying 201 OK for example) and then for
> the originating SOAP node to receive the response by the other node
> doing a 2nd HTTP POST to it? (For which the the originator may HTTP
> respond with 201 OK, for example.)
> 
> Thanks for your views on this!
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#soapinhttp
Received on Tuesday, 3 August 2004 15:07:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 22:28:13 UTC