RE: SOAPAction Proposal

Hi Dug,

Well maybe... I think the word optional may give some warm fuzzies, but if
we want it to be optional from the point of view of web service deployment
or web service design/development... then it is *not* optional from the
point of view of the design/development of a reusable Web services
platform... coz a web service designer or deployment person *might* opt to
use it.

If we want it to be optional from the point-of-view of a reusable web
services platform, it probably means that a web service designer or
deployment person cannot rely on it being present and would likely then opt
not to use it. 

If we were thinking of a soup-to-nuts monolithic implementations, then
yep... sure it's an implementation choice.

To a large extent I would agree that the spec. should in fact stay nothing
about it, but there are (usually) rationale behind the choices we take in
resolving an issue, and that's what I'm really asking about... not what
words get written in a spec.

Regards

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: 04 September 2001 16:54
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com; mnot@mnot.net; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: SOAPAction Proposal
> 
> 
> Would it still be too vague if I just say...that's an
> implementation choice?  8-)
> I can see this coming up in the Binding Task Force
> Group's discussions but in general I'm not sure the
> spec should say anything that specific about it.
> We don't tell people when/if they need to use cookies,
> that's an implementation choice - I kind of view this
> along the same lines.
> -Dug
> 
> 
> "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com> on 09/04/2001 11:02:34 AM
> 
> To:   Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
> cc:   mnot@mnot.net, xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject:  RE: SOAPAction Proposal
> 
> 
> 
> Dug,
> 
> If we were to say SOAPAction is optional, for whom is it optional?
> 
> 1) People deploying a Web Service?
> 2) People designing/developing a Web Service?
> 3) People designing/developing a (generic) Web Services Platform?
> 4) People designing/developing a (generic) Web Services 
> Client platform?
> 
> BTW this is not to take a particular position wrt to the 
> arguement, I just
> find optional a little vague unless we are clear about who we 
> intend to be
> able to exercise the option.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stuart
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
> > Sent: 04 September 2001 14:42
> > To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
> > Cc: mnot@mnot.net; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: SOAPAction Proposal
> >
> >
> > Agreed - which is why I do think we should we say something
> > along the lines of what's I've proposed [1] - which is just
> > to say that it's optional (noting the change from soap 1.1)
> > -Dug
> >
> > [1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Aug/0266.html
>
>
>
> Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com on 09/04/2001 09:27:31 AM
>
> To:   Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> cc:   mnot@mnot.net, xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject:  Re: SOAPAction Proposal
>
>
>
> Doug Davis writes:
>
> >> We don't say "don't send a FOO header
> >> unless there is a particular purpose
> >> for it", so I'm not sure we should
> >> for SOAPAction.
>
> Well, I have no strong feeling as to the right solution for
> SOAPAction,
> but I do think it's presence in the SOAP v1.1 spec gives it
> special status
> in our work.  I think users will expect us to give some
> guidance regarding
> its use, even if we do so only in a note.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice:
> 1-617-693-4036
> Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2001 12:14:10 UTC