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

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

From: graham glass <graham-glass@mindspring.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 21:00:13 -0400 (EDT)
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>
Message-ID: <NDBBKIMDGDFEBNNMEMMNGEMNDMAA.graham-glass@mindspring.com>
hi dave,

whether you publish WSDL or not, there are currently a set
of values that your SOAP servers expect to be present, which
frontier has defined and controls. this is what i meant by closed.

now imagine that another company defines a standard WSDL
which sets SOAPAction to "FOOBAR" and it becomes the great
new standard for desktop publishing. if a frontier SOAP
server wants to host a web service that supports this
standard, it will have to support whatever SOAPAction was
defined by the standard WSDL, regardless of whether frontier
ever supports the publication or consumption of WSDL files.

since you have no control over the SOAPAction field that
was defined in the standard, your SOAP server cannot be
built to assume anything about the SOAPAction field, unless
of course you are not interested in building a general
purpose server.

does this make sense?

cheers,
graham

p.s. no offence was meant by "small, closed"

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@userland.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 7:48 PM
To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; Simon Fell;
xml-dist-app@w3.org; xmlp-comments@w3.org
Subject: 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/
>
>


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 Monday, 11 June 2001 05:03:44 GMT

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