... I agree. But if we do, we should also include aspects that are unique to SOAP 1.2, not merely SOAP 1.1services recast to a SOAP 1.2 syntax. Mark BakerMessage 1 of 32 , Jul 1, 2002View SourceBob Cunnings wrote:
>I agree. But if we do, we should also include aspects that are unique to SOAP 1.2, not merely SOAP 1.1services recast to a SOAP 1.2 syntax. Mark Baker  has indicated that he believes the "Web Method Feature" to be the major architectural difference between SOAP 0.9/1.0/1.1 and SOAP 1.2. Glen Daniels  has suggested that this be brought up on to attempt to get pragmatic points of view as to how implementers hope to deal with this, and how they'd like it to work. Noah Mendelsohn independently made the same suggestion to me via phone this morning.
> Sounds good. Question to all: what do you think of the idea of SOAP 1.2
> interop testing having a place on the agenda for the October F2F ?
A prime focus is on the new SOAP Response Message Exchange Pattern . This message exchange can be simply described as HTTP GET as input and a SOAP envelope as a response. In order to capture the spirit of this requirement, the test should involve the creation of a new resource (presumably via a conventional SOAP request/response), and then accessing this new resource via HTTP GET against its unique URI.
- Sam Ruby
My schema had a typo:Message 32 of 32 , Jul 12, 2002View SourceMy schema had a typo:
<element name="Invoice" type="tns:InvoiceType"
Should be PoReferenceType
Also, we shold probably add an "Email" link to SimpleAddressType:
<element name="Name" type="string"/>
<element name="Street" type="string"/>
<!-- Locality is all other addressing info. -->
<element name="Locality" type="string"/>
<element name="EMail" type="anyURI"/>
Any comments? Judging by lack of reaction so far, perhaps folks aren't
interested in testing HTTP GET and SOAP? :)