RE: Architectural recommendations in the SOAP 1.2 Rec

I don't think that soap 1.2 is doing what you think it is doing, and I think
you are again stretching to achieve your personal agenda.

The text that you quote is specific, and says "... when deploying SOAP RPC
applications on the World Wide Web".  A typical of definition of "on the
Web" is the ability to dereference a URI using HTTP GET.  So, by definition,
to deploy an application on the web, it must have a URI.  Notice that many
things that are Web-ish (what do we call these things anyways?) aren't "on
the web".  For example, HTML FORM POST results.  Or indeed some SOAP POST
results.  And that's just fine.  We don't say "Oh btw, you shouldn't use
HTML FORMs with POST because they aren't on the web".

So, the sentence is very well written and correct, and it is not saying any
of the constraints that you claim.  Saying that a Web service that is on the
Web must identifiy resources by URI is quite redundant in fact.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Mark Baker
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 8:20 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Architectural recommendations in the SOAP 1.2 Rec
>
>
>
> Now that SOAP 1.2 is a Recommendation(!), I wanted to point out a
> specific part of it that I believe significantly impacts the WSA.
> That part is;
>
> "The following guidelines SHOULD be followed when deploying SOAP RPC
> applications on the World Wide Web."
>  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part2/#soapforrpc
>
> which is followed up by some suggestions (though still under
> the "SHOULD"
> umbrella) for how to architect your app.
>
> I believe that these are constraints which SOAP 1.2 are placing upon
> Web services.  Specifically, I think it's prescribing these two
> constraints;
>
> - identify resources by URI, not by other means
> - use the uniform interface constraint for retrievals
>
> I believe this requires one of two things;
>
> - REST style Web services given preference, as they have already
> incorporated both those constraints, or
> - some SOA style extension which includes these two constraints,
> but which is also given preference
> (I'd be happy to write prose for whichever one the group picks)
>
> Alternately, if the group determines that "SHOULD"
> recommendations from
> SOAP 1.2 should not be followed by the WSA, I think some wording
> explaining that position should be included.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Mark.
> --
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 02:34:48 UTC