- From: Geoff Arnold <Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM>
- Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 16:01:52 -0400
- To: Mark Baker <mbaker@idokorro.com>
- Cc: www-ws@w3.org
On Tuesday, April 8, 2003, at 02:27 PM, Mark Baker wrote: > Relocated to www-ws. Let's keep it here until we have something > to report back. > [snip] > We *can* definitely say that, or at least say that SOAP can also be > used in this way. In the XML Protocol WG, we used the word > "chameleon" to refer to this use. Also, the SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding > explcitly supports this use of SOAP too, as faults are transferred > over HTTP error codes, rather than HTTP success codes (as they are > in SOAP 1.1, but not 1.0 or 0.9 or XML-RPC). > > The SOAP processing model definitely does *not* preclude varying > message semantics based on the protocol or method in use. Had > anybody suggested it did during the development of SOAP 1.2 while > I was on the WG, I would have objected strenously. But nobody did. So exactly how does CapeClear implement this architecture? http://www.capeclear.com/images/tempimages/diagram.gif If such configurations become common, no sane programmer or network architect will ever rely upon varying message semantics based on protocol or HTTP method. Even if the SOAP 1.2 spec does not preclude it, best practice will deprecate it......
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2003 16:01:54 UTC