- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:04:58 -0500
- To: paul.downey@bt.com
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Hi Paul, On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 07:29:04AM -0000, paul.downey@bt.com wrote: > This is where a clear method of dispatch reaps rewards: it's very easy > for an intermediary to access control, route, and dispatch based on one > thing - the SOAP body GED. Duplicating dispatch in SOAPAction only > confuses matters IME. Mostly agreed. I believe that a clear, self-descriptive dispatch mechanism is absolutely critical. And though I believe it would be more efficient, I don't believe we have to have a single place in a SOAP message where operations must go, since that cat is out of the bag, viz a viz wsa:action, SOAPAction, implicit operations, and inherited-from-the-application-protocol operations. As it relates to Umit's proposal then, I think we need to see it tie together these other methods of specifying operations, rather than just be YADM (Yet Another Dispatch Mechanism). Hence my inquiry into adding support for application protocols. But we need to support the other means of specifying operations too (listed above), IMO. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2004 11:05:53 UTC