W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > June 2001

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

From: Dave Winer <dave@userland.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 11:16:22 -0700
Message-ID: <069501c0f1d9$760e9bc0$33a1dc40@murphy>
To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>, "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Simon Fell" <soap@zaks.demon.co.uk>, <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
Thanks Andrew, you understand what we're doing perfectly.

I'd like to embrace and extend your explanation.

We've got three apps that are scriptable via SOAP 1.1, and more on the way.

They are specified and cloneable, as we believe all SOAP apps should be.

In their specification they declare how SOAPAction must be used.

If another developer specified an open cloneable SOAP app, we would expect
them to tell *us* how to use the SOAPAction header, in English, hopefully
with a mail list where we could ask questions to clarify their intent. Then
we would test for interop and evangelize.

I believe it's important to support this way of working in the interests of
having SOAP be very widely deployed and not requiring anything more than
SOAP. My belief is that we've waited long enough for nirvana at the wire
level. It's time to do some apps. Actually it was time three years ago, when
we started.

Dave




----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Layman" <yahoo@strongbrains.com>
To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>; "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen"
<henrikn@microsoft.com>; "Simon Fell" <soap@zaks.demon.co.uk>;
<xmlp-comments@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Re: XML Protocol: Proposals to address
SOAPAction header


> Permit me to jump in in defense of implementations such as Frontier.  Much
> as I firmly believe in the usefulness of WSDL, the SOAP/XMLP specification
> should also be usable by services that are not documented by WSDL.
>
> Further, if Userland offers a service that they define, they are able,
given
> current SOAP rules, to declare the SOAPAction values that make sense for
> them.  They might not use WSDL to do the declaration, but they can use
other
> means (such as text).
>
> If Userland offers a service defined by someone else, that someone
> else may have predetermined the SOAPAction values, in which case a
Frontier
> implementation should be able to deal with the predetermined values.  My
> recollection is that it can.  If it cannot, then Frontier is not broken,
it
> is just useful for a more limited range of services.
>
> Finally, there seems to be some confusion in this discussion regarding the
> SOAPAction value, confusion over whether different services that accept
the
> same messages will match or differ in the SOAPAction values they accept or
> require.  Perhaps I am mistaken, but some of the arguments seem to presume
> that the SOAPActions must always be fixed or, conversely, may never be
> fixed. But, SOAP per se does not require either that they always be the
same
> or always be different.  That is a matter for the service definition.
>
>
>
> ----- 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/
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 Sunday, 10 June 2001 14:17:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:26 GMT