Re: SOAP 1.2 Adjuncts errata re GET support

To be clear, you're right about there being no difference in practice in 
what's on the wire.  The 2nd statement was offered in the spirit of: "hey, 
most of the spec really only tells you how to build and use SOAP-specific 
application servers, but here we'll drop in a note to point out that in 
this particular case you can also get good mileage out of software that 
you have lying around."  I don't think it intended anything more formal or 
significant than that, and indeed that's among the reasons it's 
non-normative.

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








"Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Sent by: mbaker@gmail.com
03/30/06 08:58 PM
 
        To:     "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
        cc:     xmlp-comments@w3.org
        Subject:        Re: SOAP 1.2 Adjuncts errata re GET support


Hi Noah,

On 3/30/06, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> I think you've misunderstood Mark.  In this area, SOAP 1.2 says two 
things
> that are pertinent:
>
> 1) [Normative] There's a WebMethod=GET feature.  It's intended to be 
used
> where both ends of the connection were written explicitly to conform to
> the Recommendation.  Both understand the SOAP processing model (though 
the
> "server" end has relatively little special to do.)

I'll take your word for it that this was the intent, but from an
interoperability POV there's no difference between the two cases you
describe as I see it; an HTTP GET goes in, and a SOAP envelope
emerges.

But I just figured this was a minor editorial issue, and thought a
quick note would be of service.  So if that's not the case (as it
appears) no biggie, I have no issue with it remaining there.

Cheers,

Mark.
--
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca

Received on Friday, 31 March 2006 02:20:20 UTC