- From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 10:12:55 -0700
- To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Cc: Amelia Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>, "<paul.downey@bt.com>" <paul.downey@bt.com>, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, Web Services Description <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
On Jul 1, 2004, at 7:11 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > My point is that the HTTP verbs are not so special. Err... This is the W3C ;) >>> Can someone explain what that means in SOAP and for RMI/IIOP? >> >> Sure. In the case of SOAP, as we see in Atom, they can bind a >> "GET" operation to either HTTP GET or to SOAP. > > When mapping to SOAP/HTTP will you require that it be bound > to "GET" or is "POST" ok too? If its the latter what is the > semantic of saying @webmethod="GET"? If its the prior, then > again you're looking at the special case of SOAP-Response MEP > which has built-in support for GET. Because it may be desirable to model applications as state transfer, even if this isn't advertised in a way that HTTP implementations (e.g., caches) can take advantage of (i.e., the HTTP method). State transfer is a higher-level and more useful abstraction than simple messaging. >> In the case of SOAP, they set the soapaction to "GET". > > As a WS-Addressing fan, I'd never do that .. my SOAPAction > will be the dispatching key for the service. Personally, I see SOAPAction as more analogous to the media type than the method in REST... -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2004 13:13:02 UTC