RE: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility

+1

I have been in the XMLP WG from the beginning.  Protocol independence
has always been the presumption.  In fact, the same message can ride
on different transports over various legs between intermediaries.
That said, it certainly is the case that choice of protocol does matter
from a variety of other perspectives.  Some are more efficient, offer
re-try capabilities, have nice security features, etc.

Mark A. Jones
AT&T Labs -- Strategic Standards Division
Shannon Laboratory
Room 2A02
180 Park Ave.
Florham Park, NJ  07932-0971

email: jones@research.att.com
phone: (973) 360-8326
  fax: (973) 236-6453

	From www-ws-arch-request@w3.org Wed Feb 26 08:54 EST 2003
	X-UIDL: 92b!!6/>"!#8N"!;8p!!
	Delivered-To: jones@research.att.com
	X-Authentication-Warning: mail-pink.research.att.com: postfixfilter set sender to www-ws-arch-request@w3.org using -f
	Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:53:21 -0500 (EST)
	Resent-Message-Id: <200302261353.h1QDrLA04687@frink.w3.org>
	From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
	To: "'www-ws-arch@w3.org '" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
	Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 06:52:37 -0700
	MIME-Version: 1.0
	Subject: RE: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility
	X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E405173A81@usmsg03.sagus.com
	Resent-From: www-ws-arch@w3.org
	X-Mailing-List: <www-ws-arch@w3.org> archive/latest/4608
	X-Loop: www-ws-arch@w3.org
	Resent-Sender: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
	List-Id: <www-ws-arch.w3.org>
	List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
	List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
	X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0
		tests=EXCHANGE_SERVER,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_3,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,
		      SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,X_LOOP,X_MAILING_LIST
		version=2.43-cvs
	X-Spam-Level: 




	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: Geoff Arnold [mailto:Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM]
	> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:27 AM
	> To: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org '
	> Subject: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility
	> 
	> > 
	> > Which says to me that sending a SOAP envelope with HTTP PUT means
	> > something different than sending it with POST (and any other
	> > application protocol method, for that matter).

	> 
	> If "means something different" affects the semantics of the SOAP
	> exchange at the application level, I think you've just opened
	> a large can of trout. Suppose I want to write a web service which
	> can support client interactions over HTTP, BXXP, JMS, or RFC1149
	> avian transport. SOAP over JMS (or SOAP over carrier pigeon) doesn't
	> have any notion of PUT or POST. 

	Does anyone on the WG agree with Mark here?  Does anyone interpret Noah
	Mendelsohn's comment to XMLP as implying what Mark seems to think it
	implies?  I think [not wearing my chair hat] that a SOAP message delivered
	with POST, PUT, or carrier pigeon should  have the same semantics.  

	I'd like to drain this trout pond.  I propose making sure that the glossary
	definition of "protocol independence" includes the concept that a Web
	service invocation has the same effect irrespective of the protocol or
	protocol-level features used to transmit it, and to action the editors to
	use Dave Orchard's  discussion of "visibility" in the document and glossary
	where appropriate.

	That way we can move on, and Mark or whomever can raise a formal issue that
	we will record and address for consideration by others later in the W3C
	process.  Of course, if someone on the WG wants to discuss this further, we
	can do that.

	I'm sure this will be seen as another sign of "the management" exerting
	schedule, but I think of it as just taking down the "Gone Fishin'" sign off
	the office  door. :-)

Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 10:18:12 UTC