Re: What is a SOAP message; a proposed WSA view

IMO, an HTTP PUT and an HTTP POST mean very different things. A PUT is an
instruction to store the contents of the PUT in a file. A POST is an
instruction to take the contents of the POST and process it, and return a
response. Sending a SOAP message using POST makes sense. Sending a SOAP
message using PUT seems odd -- it's unlikely that you'd mean to store a 
SOAP message on a server rather than to process it.

So technically you _could_ mis-use HTTP PUT to mean to process the 
contents as if it had been POSTed, but it just seems wrong.

- LP

On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Mark Baker wrote:

> 
> Just FYI, this proposal by Mike (which I'm sure Ws-arch will reach
> concensus on) seems very relevant to XMLP.  The reference to Noah is
> with respect to his "What is a SOAP message" question, which the
> proposal seems to offer an answer for.
> 
> MB
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com> -----
> 
> From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
> To: "'www-ws-arch@w3.org '" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
> Subject: RE: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility
> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 06:52:37 -0700
> X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E405173A81@usmsg03.sagus.com
> X-Mailing-List: <www-ws-arch@w3.org> archive/latest/4608
> List-Id: <www-ws-arch.w3.org>
> List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Geoff Arnold [mailto:Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:27 AM
> > To: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org '
> > Subject: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility
> > 
> > > 
> > > Which says to me that sending a SOAP envelope with HTTP PUT means
> > > something different than sending it with POST (and any other
> > > application protocol method, for that matter).
> 
> > 
> > If "means something different" affects the semantics of the SOAP
> > exchange at the application level, I think you've just opened
> > a large can of trout. Suppose I want to write a web service which
> > can support client interactions over HTTP, BXXP, JMS, or RFC1149
> > avian transport. SOAP over JMS (or SOAP over carrier pigeon) doesn't
> > have any notion of PUT or POST. 
> 
> Does anyone on the WG agree with Mark here?  Does anyone interpret Noah
> Mendelsohn's comment to XMLP as implying what Mark seems to think it
> implies?  I think [not wearing my chair hat] that a SOAP message delivered
> with POST, PUT, or carrier pigeon should  have the same semantics.  
> 
> I'd like to drain this trout pond.  I propose making sure that the glossary
> definition of "protocol independence" includes the concept that a Web
> service invocation has the same effect irrespective of the protocol or
> protocol-level features used to transmit it, and to action the editors to
> use Dave Orchard's  discussion of "visibility" in the document and glossary
> where appropriate.
> 
> That way we can move on, and Mark or whomever can raise a formal issue that
> we will record and address for consideration by others later in the W3C
> process.  Of course, if someone on the WG wants to discuss this further, we
> can do that.
> 
> I'm sure this will be seen as another sign of "the management" exerting
> schedule, but I think of it as just taking down the "Gone Fishin'" sign off
> the office  door. :-)
> 
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 19:58:00 UTC