- From: Abbie Barbir <abbieb@nortelnetworks.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:25:46 -0500
- To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
- Message-ID: <87609AFB433BD5118D5E0002A52CD75404FD73CB@zcard0k6.ca.nortel.com>
hi, double agree, please take off the sign .... Abbie > -----Original Message----- > From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) > [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:07 AM > To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: RE: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility > > > > Agree. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:53 AM > To: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org ' > Subject: RE: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility > > > > > > > -----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 11:30:15 UTC