RE: Issue 133: SOAP and Web Architecture: Draft sentences for HTT P bi nding preamble.

Hi Paul,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Prescod []
> Sent: 19 February 2002 13:20
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: Paul Prescod; Williams, Stuart;
> Subject: Re: Issue 133: SOAP and Web Architecture: Draft sentences for
> HTTP bi nding preamble.
> Martin Gudgin wrote:
> > 
> >...
> > 
> > It is unclear ( to me at least ) how such a call would differ from a
> > standard HTTP GET. What would make it SOAP? 
> I don't want to get into a philosophy of "what is SOAP" because that's a
> whole 'nother rant. ;)


> But consider this use-case: a SOAP message that is logically a getter
> bridges either from MQSeries to HTTP or back. I think that the client
> should issue XML-based SOAP which becomes HTTP-friendly SOAP. SOAP
> headers are bridged to (admittedly lengthy) HTTP headers (or an entity
> body part?). SOAP parameters are bridged to HTTP parameters.
> mustUnderstand to M-GET. etc. I admit I haven't worked out all of the
> details because I'm just jumping in when I noticed that Mark's issue is
> being resolved while he is away. I don't have time to fix this today. ;)

Couple of things... firstly its unfortunate that Mark is away. No-doubt we
will hear from Mark on his return and at the F2F. Mark sent regrets for the
last WG telcon and with respect to Issue 133 made specific reference to his
earlier posting at [1]. The resolution at [2] and the wording I drafted for
inclusion in the spec [3] were certainly intended to take on-board Mark's
'simple' suggestion in [1].


On the business of 'morphing' between HTTP headers and SOAP headers... I
find myself asking... 'why'? The SOAP headers are intended for SOAP nodes
along a message path (SOAP intermediaries and/or the ultimate recipient)...
they are not intended for HTTP intermediaries, so why wear them on the
outside? From a SOAP POV recipients of SOAP messages carried in HTTP
requests are HTTP origin servers.

I have a feeling that even encoding message content into HTTP headers would
lead to claims of the creation of a non-URI addressable space. So I'm
curious about where to draw the line between what it is comfortable to see
'morphed' into HTTP headers and what should be propagated into a request
URI, particularly if the content of such headers has an impact on what
resource is actually referenced or what response is generated and in some
sense can be seen as a form of sub-addressing (which seems little different
from the notion of there being a form of sub-addressing within the message
content itself).

> Paul Prescod


Stuart Williams

Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 11:39:21 UTC