W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2011

Re: SOAP and Cacheability

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:56:29 -0400
Message-ID: <4DADA29D.9080908@arcanedomain.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
CC: Unmesh Joshi <unmeshjoshi@gmail.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
My impression is that the major vendors aren't doing a whole lot to enhance 
their SOAP stacks at this point, but I could be wrong about that. More to 
the point, they seem not to have been convinced that the RESTful variant 
was worth the trouble then, and since then there's been a lot of deployment 
that just uses POST.

Frankly, I think a lot of the use cases where one might have considered use 
of RESTful SOAP are now JSON, and I'd be disinclined to fight that trend. 
The pros and cons are ultimately somewhat subtle in principle (e.g. 
documents vs. just data), but in practice this is where everyone is going, 
and mostly works, and for the data-only cases it's convenient. So, I'm 
doubtful much is going to happen on the SOAP side.

Noah

On 4/19/2011 9:39 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On 19 April 2011 15:13, Noah Mendelsohn<nrm@arcanedomain.com>  wrote:
>> The SOAP 1.2 specifications added features to allow use of
>> application/soap+xml as a media type with HTTP GET as well as POST;
>> unfortunately, those features were as far as I know not supported by the
>> major implementations, and so are not in practice available to users. Had
>> GET been supported, then HTTP caching should have worked in the normal
>> manner, and indeed that would be one reason for supporting and using the
>> feature.
>
> You talk in the past tense; is it too late to hope that SOAP toolkits
> bit get a bit more Webby?
>
> Dan
>
> (who always liked idea of SOAP messages as Web documents,
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Jul/0060.html
> ...)
>
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 14:56:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 April 2011 14:56:56 GMT