RE: SOAP breaks HTTP?

When we say that SOAP "breaks" HTTP, does this mean:

1) that SOAP does not work over HTTP?
2) that SOAP's HTTP binding violates MUST clauses in the HTTP spec?
3) that RPC (assuming that people get confused between SOAP and the
particular synchronous HTTP binding that people normally use) over HTTP
is expressly forbidden? (Which, BTW, is completely separate issue from
4) that RPC over HTTP violates someone's opinions about how web systems
SHOULD be developed (which BTW I tend to agree with, so no need to
preach to the converted on this particular design preference)
5) that SOAP breaks when used over HTTP that has intermediaries?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Prescod []
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 4:57 PM
> To: Tim Bray
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: SOAP breaks HTTP?
> Tim Bray wrote:
> >
> > At 04:13 PM 20/03/02 -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > >  SOAP is not HTTP compliant because it ships
> > >actions with the content that contradict the application semantics
> described
> > >in the control data of an HTTP message.  That breaks intermediares.
> >
> > Uh... I had not realized this.  Is one of our SOAP people going
> > to disagree with Roy on this?  It seems like a rather important
> > point.
> >
> > And Roy, for the less expert, could you explain this in words
> > of one syllable?  I didn't think that you could practically
> > speaking send a SOAP request with a GET, and it's OK if a
> > POST transaction changes a server state, so I'm clearly
> > missing something (probably because I haven't been to the
> > mat with SOAP). -Tim
> I'm going to jump in because my explanation of my opinion on this
> (written weeks ago) happens to mention your company, Tim.
> IMHO, the problem is precisely that you can't send a SOAP request with
> GET so in SOAP-world you have to do GET through POST which breaks URI
> addressing and makes HTTP messages less-than-self-descriptive.
> (the section on Firewalls is
> relevant)
>  Paul Prescod

Received on Monday, 25 March 2002 20:42:00 UTC