- From: Kasi, Jay <jay.kasi@commerceone.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 16:19:03 -0700
- To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, dkgunter@lbl.gov
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Mark, Mark Baker wrote: "In order for protocol A to be a layer on top of protocol B, the interface to developers (i.e. a library) should expose only protocol A semantics. With using SOAP over HTTP, you as a developer are using HTTP semantics (specifically POST). They are exposed to you. Contrast this with HTTP over TCP - do you as an HTTP developer know or care when an IP packet arrives out of order? You don't, because HTTP *is* a layer on top of TCP. SOAP is not a layer on top of HTTP." SOAP does not really talk about APIs as far as I understand. There is no reason why an API could not be written as the interface to a SOAP processor or a message service handler (MSH to borrow an ebXML TRP term) that does not expose the HTTP POST. I think the way APIs are exposed is a poor way to decide if a protocol is a layer. I think SOAP is a protocol layer in its own right that happens to have a HTTP binding defined (among potentially many other bindings). Incidentally I think ebXML TRP is a protocol layer also built on top of SOAP and MIME. Based on this I do think HTTP status codes finding its way into SOAP is disturbing.
Received on Friday, 8 June 2001 19:19:35 UTC