W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2006

Re: The role of transfer protocols

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 09:57:51 -0500
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0601090657x639f863rb744ba3cf1649166@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Cc: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org

Hi Yves,

On 1/9/06, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Mark Baker wrote:
>
> > In your initial WSRX/MEP post to which I responded, you were making an
> > incorrect assumption about the relationship between SOAP and HTTP.  In
> > particular, you were assuming a layered relationship (i.e. the same as
> > the relationship between, say, HTTP and TCP, or TCP/IP and Ethernet).
> > But as I've pointed out, the SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding is a *transfer*
> > binding, with SOAP playing the role of an HTTP *extension*.  This
> > means that a message produced by this binding has application
> > semantics that are a function of information in *both* the HTTP and
> > SOAP envelopes.
>
> The SOAP 1.1 binding to HTTP was targeting the use of HTTP as a tunnel,
> the use of 200 and 500 was consistent with this.

Not to look a +1 gift horse in the mouth 8-), but actually the use of
the 200 and 500 response codes was an indication to me that SOAP 1.1
used HTTP as a transfer protocol too.  SOAP 1.0 and SOAP 0.9 were the
culprits that used 200 for everything, IIRC.

I do agree that SOAP 1.2's integration with HTTP is tighter though,
save for ImmediateDestination 8-)

Mark.
Received on Monday, 9 January 2006 14:57:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:21 GMT