RE: The stack diagram (was RE: Discussion topic for tomorrow'scall)

Indeed we agreed that SOAP was not a requirement, but an example technology.
 --Katia

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Newcomer, Eric
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 5:33 PM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); Hugo Haas
Cc: Jeckle, Mario; Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org;
Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk
Subject: RE: The stack diagram (was RE: Discussion topic for
tomorrow'scall)



I am not sure we ever said SOAP was a requirement, although personally it
seems to me to be a kind of minimum requirement for what's typically thought
of as a "web service" -- it all started with the SOAP spec back in late '99,
after all.

Our formal Web services definitions have tended to be more generic, along
the lines of "XML over HTTP"

-----Original Message-----
From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 5:23 PM
To: Hugo Haas; Newcomer, Eric
Cc: Jeckle, Mario; Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org;
Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk
Subject: RE: The stack diagram (was RE: Discussion topic for
tomorrow'scall)


AHA!!  Hugo seems to be saying that you can have a Web service that just
uses HTTP without SOAP, as I documented in the note I just sent a few
minutes ago.  So we are NOT saying that Web services MUST use SOAP?

-----Original Message-----
From: Hugo Haas [mailto:hugo@w3.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 11:26 AM
To: Newcomer, Eric
Cc: Jeckle, Mario; Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org;
Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Subject: Re: The stack diagram (was RE: Discussion topic for tomorrow's
call)


* Newcomer, Eric <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com> [2003-04-09 11:08-0400]
> This would be much clearer and more useful without the protocol
> binding box extending into the SOAP area.  Representing the major
concepts clearly in a diagram should be the goal rather than including
every detail in the diagram.
>
> We want to provide someone with a visual understanding of the
> architectural framework, meaning primarily what is included within it,
and represent *to some extent* the relationships among the major pieces.
>
> Drawing the line between what is clear and general and specific and
> confusing is never easy, and no doubt we will have many opinions.
>
> I'd like to propose that we adopt this version of the diagram, without

> the protocol binding part, and move on.

I think that it all comes down to knowing how many diagrams we need to
represent our space, so that each diagram is reasonnably simple and
understandable.

We need to address the fact that HTTP without SOAP may be used to do
some requests, such as with the SOAP 1.2 HTTP GET binding.

This is why I am worried about showing HTTP in the transport box without
any link to the message box. I think that I could live with this diagram
if there was some text accompanying it talking about that.

And in this case we should also add some explanation about why HTTP is
in a box called transport, otherwise I foresee comments about that.

Regards,

Hugo

--
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/

Received on Monday, 14 April 2003 19:30:50 UTC