- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:30:03 -0700
- To: <www-tag@w3.org>
Noah, As a TAG member, I do not want the XMLP WG as it is currently chartered to be tasked with solving this problem. Further, SOAP 1.2 should be the focus for dist-app, IMO. I believe that the TAG should be the focal point for this issue, if the issue won't go to the web services architecture group. For these reasons and a few others, I would prefer to keep discussions on the TAG list. Cheers, Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: www-tag-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of > noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 4:09 PM > To: Mark Baker > Cc: Williams, Stuart; www-tag@w3.org > Subject: Re: whenToUseGet-7 Making SOAP Restful > > > 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 19:33:32 UTC