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

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

From: Andrew Layman <andrew@strongbrains.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:09:51 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <002901c0f1d7$c8a6a140$2fc7173f@andrewxps>
To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>, "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Simon Fell" <soap@zaks.demon.co.uk>, <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
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/
Received on Monday, 11 June 2001 05:03:48 GMT

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