- From: Mark Baker <mark.baker@Canada.Sun.COM>
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 18:35:21 -0500
- To: Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>
- CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org, devel@casbah.org
[btw, I'm not signed up for soap-discuss, so feel free to forward my posts there yourself] Ken MacLeod wrote: > XML messaging does what HTTP does, just differently because no one > wants to mess with HTTP's installed base (i.e. if it doesn't use only > GET/PUT/POST it probably ain't gonna happen). One of the most common > ways to implement XML messaging is to actually tunnel those messages > on top of HTTP's POST (and less often, GET and PUT). Sure. I think POST makes most sense for messaging, since its semantics are to insert a document into a container, like a message into a channel. > XML messaging often suggests many different types of methods than > GET/PUT/POST. And HTTP supports extension methods for that reason. But what methods did you have in mind? Are you sure they're necessary? The standard HTTP methods are pretty powerful. (see below) > Scenario one recognizes HTTP's "method" field and proposes we use it. I assume by "method field" you mean just using your own method. > Scenario two recognizes that that's never gonna happen, so let's > simply declare a new successor (I use SOAP as an example). Why won't that happen? Both cases require the server to be upgraded in some sense. > I refer to a third scenario in this message above, that of tunneling a > messaging protocol through HTTP. That's simply a hack, a very, very > common hack, but a hack none the less. Why would you need to tunnel a message protocol over HTTP? Why not just send the XML directly over HTTP? > > > Now to DWChat. getMessages() and postMessage() are both "actions" that > > > do something much different than simply "get" a value or offer data to > > > a function (POST). > > > > > > In scenario one from above, that would be: > > > > > > DWChat:getMessages http://mysite.org/chat_channel_1 HTTP/1.1 > > > DWChat:postMessage http://mysite.org/chat_channel_1 HTTP/1.1 > > > > > > Note that some URL munging could be applied here to achieve the same > > > effect with GET/POST, but I don't think that scales well. > > > > URL munging to avoid caching? > > URL munging as a different technique of passing what "method" (action) > I want the server to perform. It's a hack that could be worse than > tunneling. Inserting a chat message into a chat channel is perfectly aligned with HTTP POST semantics. What other action do you need the server to perform? Can that be represented by posting a different XML document to a sub-URI? eg. http://mysite.org/chat_channel_1/admin/ The documents posted to that URI would represent different adminstration actions one could take on the channel. MB
Received on Friday, 10 March 2000 18:34:12 UTC