- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 19:09:03 -0400
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Mark Baker writes: >> But IMO, trying to build something HTTP-like on top of >> SOAP, which in turn will often be on top of HTTP, is >> quite impractical and unnecessary. I think this is a reflection of the Web's failure, so far, to separate a generic REST layer, from its embodiment in a particular protocol (HTTP). My proposal does not set out to recreate HTTP...it attempts to map a part of REST into SOAP. We might also want to also do DELETE, but I think SOAP does the right thing by providing a structured architecture for exploiting POST (not HTTP POST, POST in general). Guidance sought from the TAG: it's obvious there is a desire among some correspondents to drill on the SOAP/REST issue. It's not clear to me that the www-tag list is the right place to hash out the details (or that this necessarily is the right time.) Should we move this discussion to distApp? How should we manage the need to figure drill on the SOAP/REST-specific issues, while also keeping the Tag in the loop on the underlying SOAP/REST/is-the-web-rest-only/is-soap-a-broken-w3c-activity discussion? Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> 04/26/2002 08:51 AM To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com> cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, www-tag@w3.org Subject: Re: whenToUseGet-7 Making SOAP Restful Hi Stuart, On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 09:09:46AM +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote: > Just a thought anyway... a 'null' SOAP request message as the 'trigger' to > use HTTP GET rather than some other 'magical' incantation. What do you > think? Others? Mark B? Noah's example was a good one to help illustrate the different ways in which one can think of using SOAP, especially as it relates to making use of the semantics of application protocols. But IMO, trying to build something HTTP-like on top of SOAP, which in turn will often be on top of HTTP, is quite impractical and unnecessary. It's true that HTTP's extensibility and processing models aren't as rich as SOAP's, but also IMO, these small improvements are no where near enough to justify the huge cost of deploying such a solution. I think that if SOAP has a future on the Web (as opposed to on the Internet), it will be with the chameleon use where both SOAP and HTTP are used by developers at the same time (though an EDI-like use of SOAP over POST is fine, it's a niche). But I've yet to see a SOAP library that supports such a use. MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 19:23:42 UTC