- From: Matt Long <mlong@phalanxsys.com>
- Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 22:42:30 -0500
- To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
If you fully utilize the WSDL server-side, an import of a service with "XXX" SOAPAction is going to be supported. I do not see this as any problem, unless implementors being using the same URI for all services. Which incidentally, is the same as elimination of SOAPAction from a WSDL perspective. The Phalanx implementation currently supports importation of a WSDL with "XXX" SOAPAction and has no issue with the example described, which is by design. I have trouble believing that "down the road" any nomial interoperable SOAP stack is not going to support the same. Yes, some current stacks *may* have issues with a straight import, but that's part of the learning curve of what each independent stack chooses to support and in what manner. -Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: graham glass [mailto:graham-glass@mindspring.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 8:07 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 > > > 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/
Received on Saturday, 9 June 2001 23:43:11 UTC