Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

8103RE: [soapbuilders] Re: SOAP 1.2 GET binding

Expand Messages
  • graham glass
    Jul 4, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      one associated question is: given the relatively experimental nature of MEP, should it really
      be in the SOAP 1.2 specification at all? perhaps it would be better to have a separate
      document that contains descriptions of promising experimental features that if additional
      thought prove compelling, move into the official specification. my fear is that things like MEP
      sound cool to begin with, but end up introducing an avalanche of unanticipated complexity.
      we already went through enough of that pain with the 1.1 specification, and many features
      such as sparse arrays ended up getting swept under the carpet.
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@...]
      Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 5:39 PM
      To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Re: SOAP 1.2 GET binding

      Hi all, 8-)
      I think I agree with Sanjiva that the use of SOAP together with
      WSDL seems to diminish the usefulness of the SOAP Response MEP
      over HTTP GET.
      Since I believe the SOAP HTTP binding is not going away (even
      though many think it's suboptimal at best) the WSDL group will
      have to think hard on how to make SOAP Response MEP over HTTP GET
      describable in WSDL and how to describe RESTish applications in
      WSDL so that they are recognized as such in order to be able to
      use HTTP effectively.
      For soapbuilders interop testing, unless we see a great number
      of implementations with converging views of how the new MEP over
      GET is to be implemented, we should concentrate on what we
      already do - headers, faults, attachments.
      Best regards

                         Jacek Kopecky

                         Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation

      P.S: I'm off for a week's vacation starting 7/5.

      On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

      > "cdthoughtpost" <chris@...> writes:
      > > Where does the WSDL HTTP GET binding come into play here?  Should
      > > that be used as the basis for support of this feature?  If so, then
      > > WSDL seems to assume either a replacement scheme or encoding as the
      > > query string, defined in the GET binding.
      > The WSDL 1.1 HTTP GET binding is a different beast from the new
      > SOAP MEP. WSDL 1.2 will need to have an additional binding for
      > request-response operations to support the new MEP: HTTP GET for
      > the request and SOAP envelope in the response of that GET. That
      > binding would have to define a way to generate the URL from the
      > message parts - probably in a manner similar to the current GET
      > binding does.
      > The funny thing to me is this: (if and) when WSDL has a binding
      > for the new MEP and (if and) when toolkits support that binding,
      > the use of the new MEP will be indistinguishable from the use
      > of the "old" MEP of the request too being in SOAP via HTTP POST.
      > That is, a stub generated from these WSDLs would behave exactly the
      > same way! Thus, the use of GET would become an implementation detail
      > that users would not care about, just like they don't care about
      > POST being used right now (or in fact that HTTP is being used).
      > This seems to defeat the main objective of this new MEP: to allow
      > application developers (i.e., people who call the stub) to recognize
      > that an operation is a "safe" operation and hence can be "linked"
      > to by that application. The app developer (in most cases) probably
      > didn't even read the WSDL and hence probably never knew that GET
      > was used instead of POST!
      > Sanjiva.

      This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues.  Please stay on-topic.

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic