Re: POST abuse?

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> However, I don't know that going to pure-GET is necessary to fix
> this; merely requiring a 1-to-1 service-to-URI mapping would do the
> trick.

Could you define "service" here? The WSDL definition seems much more
granular than what I think you are talking about. I'd also appreciate if
you describe where you think this mapping takes place and what it looks
like. Are we talking about soap: URIs?

I was thinking recently about what you would need to construct a string
that represented a SOAP query. You really can't compress the message
much in generating this representation. You need:

 a) end-point URL
 b) XML namespace
 c) method name
 d) SOAPAction
 e) parameters
 f) expansions for any "cookies" or "handles" you've passed around.

SOAP could be a lot more addressability friendly if it would get rid of
some of that magic stuff. If the SOAPAction were defined to be
URI#methodname that would help. 

But the "cookies" and "handles" are going to be the real killer. We
would have to strongly deprecate the use of those sorts of things if we
want to maintain addressability.

Another issue is that you don't want every method result to be
addressable. Some non-cachable method results should be addressable
(e.g. currentStockQuote/IBM). But the result of the "please accept this
purchase order" method is not repeatable. The second time, you've
submitted a different purchase order.

The ResponseCache stuff is interesting. Evaluating XPath expressions
seems quite expensive but I guess it is your business to worry about
that, not mine. <0.5 wink>
Take a recipe. Leave a recipe.  
Python Cookbook!

Received on Saturday, 25 August 2001 20:01:02 UTC