Re: [soapbuilders] Re: XML Protocol: Proposals to address SOAPAction header

Dave/Graham,
  Isn't the interop we've achieved so far, w.r.t. SOAPAction,
only because we have been allowed to basically make it
whatever we want?  Unless I'm mistaken you use it for
dispatching, right?  So, it has to be relatively unique,
either at the method level or the object level - and this
is great when "you" are allowed to define/influence the
value of SOAPAction.  But let's say you heard about a really
cool WebService out there and you want to make your end-point
support it, and you want people to simply change the target-URL.
No problem, right?  Well, what if the SOAPAction, as defined
by the originator of the service, is "" ?  I believe you
wouldn't be able to support it right?
Graham - this is the type of scenario you were talking about
right?
-Dug


"Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com> on 06/09/2001 09:56:54 PM

Please respond to soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com

To:   <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>, "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen"
      <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Simon Fell" <soap@zaks.demon.co.uk>,
      <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
cc:
Subject:  Re: [soapbuilders] Re: XML Protocol: Proposals to address
      SOAPAction header



Yes, that makes sense, and no doubt if there was enough value in the
standard you talk about, we could support it, and of course would.

However, there is also a lot of value in the interop we have attained, and
as far as I'm concerned, nothing is going to make that go away -- there's
just too much investment to walk away from it for some theoretical killer
app that hasn't come along yet.

Net-net -- we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Who knows what the
killer app is, let's hope they use SOAP.  I remember meeting with the
Napster folks last year and suggesting that they use SOAP, and they said
"What's that?" Needless to say they didn't.

Dave


----- Original Message -----
From: "graham glass" <graham-glass@mindspring.com>
To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>; "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen"
<henrikn@microsoft.com>; "Simon Fell" <soap@zaks.demon.co.uk>;
<xml-dist-app@w3.org>; <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 6:06 PM
Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Re: XML Protocol: Proposals to address
SOAPAction header


> hi dave,
>
> whether you publish WSDL or not, there are currently a set
> of values that your SOAP servers expect to be present, which
> frontier has defined and controls. this is what i meant by closed.
>
> now imagine that another company defines a standard WSDL
> which sets SOAPAction to "FOOBAR" and it becomes the great
> new standard for desktop publishing. if a frontier SOAP
> server wants to host a web service that supports this
> standard, it will have to support whatever SOAPAction was
> defined by the standard WSDL, regardless of whether frontier
> ever supports the publication or consumption of WSDL files.
>
> since you have no control over the SOAPAction field that
> was defined in the standard, your SOAP server cannot be
> built to assume anything about the SOAPAction field, unless
> of course you are not interested in building a general
> purpose server.
>
> does this make sense?
>
> cheers,
> graham
>
> p.s. no offence was meant by "small, closed"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@userland.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 7:48 PM
> To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; Simon Fell;
> xml-dist-app@w3.org; xmlp-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Re: XML Protocol: Proposals to address
> SOAPAction header
>
>
> We're talking about SOAP 1.1, last I heard,  we don't publish WSDL. Maybe
> you should switch perspectives and imagine a network without WSDL. About
> Frontier being a "small, closed system" I have no idea what you're
talking
> about but I sure don't like the way it sounds. Dave
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "graham glass" <graham-glass@mindspring.com>
> To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>; "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen"
> <henrikn@microsoft.com>; "Simon Fell" <soap@zaks.demon.co.uk>;
> <xml-dist-app@w3.org>; <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 5:48 PM
> Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Re: XML Protocol: Proposals to address
> SOAPAction header
>
>
> > hi guys,
> >
> > my issue is still exactly the same as it was 3 months ago.
> >
> > based on the current definition, the owner of a SOAP server
> > cannot count on the SOAPAction having any particular meaning
> > unless the owner was also the one that generated the WSDL.
> >
> > this is fine in a closed, small system, such as frontier
> > publishing WSDL for its own service and specifying which
> > SOAPAction it wants, but seems to lose its value when WSDL
> > is published by vendor X and then an implementation of the
> > service is hosted on vendor Y's SOAP server.
> >
> > from my own perspective, if GLUE hosts a web service
> > that implements a WSDL published by IBM and IBM decides to
> > make the SOAPAction "FOOBAR", what can GLUE do this with
> > value? can it filter based on it? i guess i could, if i
> > manually program the HTTP server with all the various
> > SOAPActions from different WSDLs that i want to filter.
> >
> > is that the intent - that the SOAPAction fields are
> > manually entered into some kind of firewall software?
> >
> > can i route based on it? no, not if IBM chooses a value
> > that is not particularly meaningful. i have no control
> > over what value they use if they happen to set the standard
> > for that particular web service definition.
> >
> > am i totally missing something here?
> >
> > i've still yet to see where the SOAPAction value can be
> > useful in an open environment where the publisher of the
> > WSDL can basically set it to whatever value they want.
> >
> > cheers,
> > graham
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jake Savin [mailto:jake@userland.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 7:21 PM
> > To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; Simon Fell; xml-dist-app@w3.org;
> > xmlp-comments@w3.org
> > Cc: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [soapbuilders] Re: XML Protocol: Proposals to address
> > SOAPAction header
> >
> >
> > Hi Henrik,
> >
> > From my point of view, this is a *much* more attractive clarification
of
> the
> > use of SOAPAction, than the previous proposals (the deprecation or
removal
> > of SOAPAction).
> >
> > It addresses some of the ambiguities of the current wording, as well as
> > avoiding breaking existing implementations and services.
> >
> > I endorse it.
> >
> > -Jake
> >
> > on 6/9/01 10:27 AM, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen at henrikn@microsoft.com
wrote:
> >
> > > Note that there has been work going on in clarifying the SOAPAction
use
> > > - I would be interested in hearing what you think about that
> > >
> > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001May/0053.html
> > >
> > > Henrik
> > >
> > >> If A & B are the only choices they i'd pick B, A is just an
> > >> interop mess waiting to happen.
> > >>
> > >> However, SOAPAction in its current (i.e. SOAP 1.1) form, does
> > >> serve a useful purpose, my only complaint is that the spec
> > >> doesn't describe very well how to use it.
> > >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Received on Saturday, 9 June 2001 22:08:18 UTC