Re: SOAP & Web arch

On 3/29/06, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <> wrote:
> There is no reason why the immediate destination and the ultimate
> destination can't be the same and in case of the HTTP binding the two
> will collapse to always be the same.

Ah, I see what you mean.  Yes, in the case where there's no
non-terminating SOAP/HTTP intermediary, that would be consistent with
Web arch.  Fair enough.

So while the ambiguity I pointed out is a problem with the spec
because it yields work which is incompatible with Web arch - as
demonstrated by the WS-Addressing SOAP binding's failure to populate
the value of the ImmediateDestination property (presumably due to the
WG assuming that ImmediateDestination never identifies the ultimate
recipient, per that ambiguity) - I agree that there's at least one Web
architecture-friendly use of the spec.

Thanks, Henrik.

Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.

Received on Wednesday, 29 March 2006 21:46:28 UTC