- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 18:35:25 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Eric Newcomer <eric.newcomer@iona.com>
- cc: "'Paul Prescod'" <paul@prescod.net>, "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Eric,
I was suggesting dropping the HTTP binding because HTTP is an
application protocol already supporting metadata and I don't see
a real value of SOAP as the content type in HTTP. If the HTTP
binding stays (which I assume will be the case) and if it is the
secondary binding as I'm suggesting, I wouldn't want any
duplicity of methods and headers, I'd still put headers in only
one place (in an HTTP header or in a SOAP header) and I wouldn't
put the explicit method element in the body.
The example SOAP envelope in my email is supposed to be sent
over TCP or other similar binding.
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
http://www.systinet.com/
On Sun, 16 Jun 2002, Eric Newcomer wrote:
> If I understand this correctly, you are proposing a kind of dual approach,
> for example including the method name in the HTTP binding and also within
> the message itself?
>
> My big concern with the move toward HTTP specific binding for SOAP is losing
> the ability to easily map to JMS, MQ Series, CORBA, J2EE, etc. I know Mark
> Baker says we can do it anyway, and perhaps we can, but to me one of the big
> questions is whether or not we are thinking about just sending the entire
> message over the transport, and letting the "endpoints" decide what to do
> with it, and how to interpret it.
>
> So you are suggesting including the header information in both the HTTP part
> of the message and also in the SOAP part of the message?
>
> Eric
>
Received on Sunday, 16 June 2002 12:35:28 UTC