W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > June 2002

Re: Consequences of SOAP GET to Web Services?

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:37:17 -0800 (GMT-08:00)
Message-ID: <5018853.1024047437825.JavaMail.nobody@web54.us.oracle.com>
To: distobj@acm.org, www-ws-arch@w3.org

I don't see the TAG/XMLP ruling and resulting work invalidating OMA/CORBA/COM architectures. Can you explain how you reached your conclusion that OMA/CORBA/COM architectures do not have much to do with web architecture? 


> All,
> For those of you who don't follow the TAG or the XML Protocol 
> Working Group, the TAG recently said[1] that the lack of GET support
>  in the default SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding was counter to Web 
> architecture.  The implications of this decision, and the resulting 
> response[2] of the XML Protocol Working Group, should, IMO, be 
> studied carefully by all working groups in the Web Services 
> Activity, and the Web Services Architecture Working Group in 
> particular. 
> The first and most obvious thing that this means, is that if the 
> underlying protocol is HTTP, that a SOAP developer must be aware of 
> that fact.  In other words, it is counter to Web architecture to 
> treat SOAP as a layer when bound to HTTP, which virtually all SOAP 
> 1.1 based Web services do.
> Today, for us, this means that D-AR003.1[3] is incorrect (at least 
> what it's intended to mean), and should be rephrased to ensure that 
> the Web services reference architecture exposes the semantics of 
> underlying application protocols (or at the very least, HTTP GET).  
> This was also *roughly* the conclusion[4] of a recent discussion - 
> with limited input by the WG - about this draft requirement.
> This decision also highlights the value of D-AR003.2[5], the 
> recently added draft requirement on an "a priori interface".  "GET" 
> is a key method of this interface, as are the other HTTP methods 
> that operate on resources, plus the "faults" (aka "status codes") 
> that those methods return.  I discussed this here[6].
> Going forward, I suggest that this decision has significant 
> consequences for our work.  Primary amoungst them, I believe, is 
> that the "assumed architecture" that many (most?) WG members have in
>  mind - the one that looks like OMA/CORBA - does not have very much 
> to do with Web architecture, and any architectural decisions that 
> are made assuming that it does, will inevitably meet with objection 
> from the TAG if we incorporate them into our work.
> I look forward to some discussion on what other WG members thinks 
> this means for us.
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002May/0018
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2002Jun/0006 (member 
> only) [3] 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/06/wd-wsa-reqs-20020605.html#AR003.1 
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002May/0443 [5]
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/06/wd-wsa-reqs-20020605.html#AR003.6 
> [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002May/0302 
> MB
> -- 
> Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
> http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Friday, 14 June 2002 05:39:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:34 UTC