RE: Proposed text for 2.2.21 (take 2)

Well, according to the SOAP definition of a Response MEP (which the HTTP GET binding is associated with):
"The SOAP Response MEP defines a pattern for the exchange of a non-SOAP message acting as a request followed by a SOAP message acting as a response".

So the SOAP 1.2 spec says there are two messages involved ...

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:anne@manes.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 10:29 AM
> To: Ugo Corda; Francis McCabe; Hao He
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed text for 2.2.21 (take 2)
> 
> 
> I think Mark's point is that when you use the HTTP GET Web 
> Feature, you
> don't *send* a message to the resource. You simply GET the 
> representation,
> which happens to be a SOAP message.
> 
> Anne
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
> To: "Francis McCabe" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>; "Hao He" 
> <Hao.He@thomson.com.au>
> Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 12:50 PM
> Subject: RE: Proposed text for 2.2.21 (take 2)
> 
> 
> >
> > > I would strongly suggest removing the references to using 
> HTTP GET as a
> > > way of sending messages. Mark B is right on this one. If 
> you want to
> > > use HTTP, the appropriate verb is POST.
> >
> > I don't fully understand your comment. I think Hao was 
> referring to the
> Web Method feature of SOAP 1.2. According to that feature, an HTTP GET
> represents a particular binding of a SOAP Response MEP. So an 
> HTTP GET used
> in this context is a legitimate realization of the type of messages we
> address in this spec.
> >
> > > I suggest further that the plain XML reference is not one 
> that has been
> > > endorsed by the group. Indeed I recall significant 
> pushback on this
> one...
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > Ugo
> >
> >
> 
>

Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 13:46:47 UTC