- From: Jon Dart <jdart@tibco.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 17:25:57 -0700
- To: Hao He <Hao.He@thomson.com.au>
- CC: "'Christopher B Ferris'" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, "'www-ws-arch@w3.org'" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Hao He wrote: > <hh>I believe that the WSA we produce should also be part of the Web arch. > A layered architecture that enables developers to see a natural transition > from non-SOAP XML to SOAP will only benefit all of us. </hh> +1 to this. I'm not really uncomfortable with the point of view that WSDL and SOAP are necessary, but IMO WSDL is more necessary thant SOAP. If you have WSDL, you have a framework to hang alternative protocols onto, even HTTP GET/POST if that's where you are at; if you have SOAP, you have specified a protocol. So IMO there is a logical layering there. If this point has been made before, apologies, but from my perusal of the list I have mostly seen "WSDL & SOAP" vs. "neither WSDL nor SOAP", and IMO the above is a reasonable compromise position. --Jon
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2003 20:26:17 UTC