Re: [soapbuilders] Re: XML Protocol: Proposals to address SOAPAction header

We're talking about SOAP 1.1, last I heard,  we don't publish WSDL. Maybe
you should switch perspectives and imagine a network without WSDL. About
Frontier being a "small, closed system" I have no idea what you're talking
about but I sure don't like the way it sounds. Dave


----- Original Message -----
From: "graham glass" <graham-glass@mindspring.com>
To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>; "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen"
<henrikn@microsoft.com>; "Simon Fell" <soap@zaks.demon.co.uk>;
<xml-dist-app@w3.org>; <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 5:48 PM
Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Re: XML Protocol: Proposals to address
SOAPAction header


> hi guys,
>
> my issue is still exactly the same as it was 3 months ago.
>
> based on the current definition, the owner of a SOAP server
> cannot count on the SOAPAction having any particular meaning
> unless the owner was also the one that generated the WSDL.
>
> this is fine in a closed, small system, such as frontier
> publishing WSDL for its own service and specifying which
> SOAPAction it wants, but seems to lose its value when WSDL
> is published by vendor X and then an implementation of the
> service is hosted on vendor Y's SOAP server.
>
> from my own perspective, if GLUE hosts a web service
> that implements a WSDL published by IBM and IBM decides to
> make the SOAPAction "FOOBAR", what can GLUE do this with
> value? can it filter based on it? i guess i could, if i
> manually program the HTTP server with all the various
> SOAPActions from different WSDLs that i want to filter.
>
> is that the intent - that the SOAPAction fields are
> manually entered into some kind of firewall software?
>
> can i route based on it? no, not if IBM chooses a value
> that is not particularly meaningful. i have no control
> over what value they use if they happen to set the standard
> for that particular web service definition.
>
> am i totally missing something here?
>
> i've still yet to see where the SOAPAction value can be
> useful in an open environment where the publisher of the
> WSDL can basically set it to whatever value they want.
>
> cheers,
> graham
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jake Savin [mailto:jake@userland.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 7:21 PM
> To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; Simon Fell; xml-dist-app@w3.org;
> xmlp-comments@w3.org
> Cc: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [soapbuilders] Re: XML Protocol: Proposals to address
> SOAPAction header
>
>
> Hi Henrik,
>
> From my point of view, this is a *much* more attractive clarification of
the
> use of SOAPAction, than the previous proposals (the deprecation or removal
> of SOAPAction).
>
> It addresses some of the ambiguities of the current wording, as well as
> avoiding breaking existing implementations and services.
>
> I endorse it.
>
> -Jake
>
> on 6/9/01 10:27 AM, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen at henrikn@microsoft.com wrote:
>
> > Note that there has been work going on in clarifying the SOAPAction use
> > - I would be interested in hearing what you think about that
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001May/0053.html
> >
> > Henrik
> >
> >> If A & B are the only choices they i'd pick B, A is just an
> >> interop mess waiting to happen.
> >>
> >> However, SOAPAction in its current (i.e. SOAP 1.1) form, does
> >> serve a useful purpose, my only complaint is that the spec
> >> doesn't describe very well how to use it.
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Received on Saturday, 9 June 2001 20:48:56 UTC