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

SOAP 1.2 GET binding

Expand Messages
  • Rich Salz
    Am I missing something or is the SOAP 1.2 GET binding only capable of primitive types? What does the URI look like for echoStruct? /r$
    Message 1 of 18 , Jul 2, 2002
      Am I missing something or is the SOAP 1.2 GET binding only capable of
      primitive types? What does the URI look like for echoStruct?
      /r$
    • Simon Fell
      ... Its undefined, as is the URI for any request that uses parameters. Cheers Simon
      Message 2 of 18 , Jul 2, 2002
        On Tue, 02 Jul 2002 10:02:56 -0400, in ws you wrote:

        >Am I missing something or is the SOAP 1.2 GET binding only capable of
        >primitive types? What does the URI look like for echoStruct?
        > /r$

        Its undefined, as is the URI for any request that uses parameters.

        Cheers
        Simon
      • sa3ruby
        ... From http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part2-20020626/#RPConWeb No standard means of representation of arguments or method names is provided by this
        Message 3 of 18 , Jul 2, 2002
          Rich Salz wrote:
          > Am I missing something or is the SOAP 1.2 GET binding only capable of
          > primitive types? What does the URI look like for echoStruct?

          From http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part2-20020626/#RPConWeb

          "No standard means of representation of arguments or method names is
          provided by this specification.".

          What http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part2/#soapresmep does specify is the
          ability to retrieve a SOAP Response using an arbitray (and opaque) URL
          using HTTP GET.

          - Sam Ruby
        • Rich Salz
          I know, it was a rhetorical question. :) ... Given our complete failure to get an interoperable standard for map et al, I really think it is inappropriate for
          Message 4 of 18 , Jul 2, 2002
            I know, it was a rhetorical question. :)

            > "No standard means of representation of arguments or method names is
            > provided by this specification.".

            Given our complete failure to get an interoperable standard for map et
            al, I really think it is inappropriate for us to do HTTP GET. Our forte
            seems to be testing standards, not creating them.

            >We can leave that part to the hoi polloi.

            I know I was being mean when I used the word. It means "the masses,"
            not "the elite" you know. :)
            /r$
          • Bob Cunnings
            Worse yet, from what I gather the use of SOAP headers is precluded by this scheme. I can scarce imagine a deployed service that wouldn t use header blocks to
            Message 5 of 18 , Jul 2, 2002
              Worse yet, from what I gather the use of SOAP headers is
              precluded by this scheme. I can scarce imagine a deployed service
              that wouldn't use header blocks to implement extensions like
              security.

              RC

              > Am I missing something or is the SOAP 1.2 GET binding only capable of
              > primitive types? What does the URI look like for echoStruct?
              > /r$
              >
              >
              > -----------------------------------------------------------------
              > 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:
              > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
            • simonfell99
              ... That reminds me, was the schema for Map from the F2F published ? Cheers Simon
              Message 6 of 18 , Jul 2, 2002
                --- In soapbuilders@y..., Rich Salz <r.salz@v...> wrote:
                > I know, it was a rhetorical question. :)
                >
                > > "No standard means of representation of arguments or method names
                > is provided by this specification.".
                >
                > Given our complete failure to get an interoperable standard for map
                > et al, I really think it is inappropriate for us to do HTTP GET.
                > Our forte seems to be testing standards, not creating them.

                That reminds me, was the schema for Map from the F2F published ?

                Cheers
                Simon
              • cdthoughtpost
                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
                Message 7 of 18 , Jul 2, 2002
                  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.

                  What's the current state of the union on HTTP GET support? I've
                  been away for a while, but some quick searches didn't turn up a
                  whole lot, and I'm guessing from this discussion that its not very
                  popular.

                  For what its worth, part 2 of the spec (4.1.2 & 6.4.3) reads pretty
                  clearly, no headers for GET; if you need headers, (and like Bob
                  said, won't most real services someday?) you're doing a POST.

                  Chris Dix

                  --- In soapbuilders@y..., "Bob Cunnings" <cunnings@l...> wrote:
                  > Worse yet, from what I gather the use of SOAP headers is
                  > precluded by this scheme. I can scarce imagine a deployed service
                  > that wouldn't use header blocks to implement extensions like
                  > security.
                  >
                  > RC
                  >
                  > > Am I missing something or is the SOAP 1.2 GET binding only
                  capable of
                  > > primitive types? What does the URI look like for echoStruct?
                  > > /r$
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                  > > 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:
                  > > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@y...
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  > >
                • Kirill Gavrylyuk
                  +1 I would rather suggest we do SOAP 1.2 headers as they are substantially different from the SOAP 1.1. ... From: Rich Salz [mailto:r.salz@verizon.net] Sent:
                  Message 8 of 18 , Jul 2, 2002
                    +1
                    I would rather suggest we do SOAP 1.2 headers as they are substantially
                    different from the SOAP 1.1.


                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Rich Salz [mailto:r.salz@...]
                    Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 9:01 AM
                    To: sa3ruby
                    Cc: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Re: SOAP 1.2 GET binding

                    I know, it was a rhetorical question. :)

                    > "No standard means of representation of arguments or method names is
                    > provided by this specification.".

                    Given our complete failure to get an interoperable standard for map et
                    al, I really think it is inappropriate for us to do HTTP GET. Our forte

                    seems to be testing standards, not creating them.

                    >We can leave that part to the hoi polloi.

                    I know I was being mean when I used the word. It means "the masses,"
                    not "the elite" you know. :)
                    /r$


                    -----------------------------------------------------------------
                    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:
                    soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  • Rich Salz
                    ... I agree.
                    Message 9 of 18 , Jul 2, 2002
                      Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:
                      > I would rather suggest we do SOAP 1.2 headers as they are substantially
                      > different from the SOAP 1.1.

                      I agree.
                    • rubys@us.ibm.com
                      ... What I was suggesting is that we test SOAP 1.2, part 2, section 6.3. - Sam Ruby
                      Message 10 of 18 , Jul 2, 2002
                        Rich Salz wrote:
                        >
                        >> "No standard means of representation of arguments or method names is
                        >> provided by this specification.".
                        >

                        > Given our complete failure to get an interoperable standard for map et
                        > al, I really think it is inappropriate for us to do HTTP GET.  Our forte
                        > seems to be testing standards, not creating them.


                        What I was suggesting is that we test SOAP 1.2, part 2, section 6.3.

                        - Sam Ruby
                      • rjray@blackperl.com
                        ... Bob Worse yet, from what I gather the use of SOAP headers is precluded by Bob this scheme. I can scarce imagine a deployed service that wouldn t use Bob
                        Message 11 of 18 , Jul 2, 2002
                          >>>>> "Bob" == Bob Cunnings <cunnings@...>
                          >>>>> wrote the following on Tue, 2 Jul 2002 09:32:46 -0700

                          Bob> Worse yet, from what I gather the use of SOAP headers is precluded by
                          Bob> this scheme. I can scarce imagine a deployed service that wouldn't use
                          Bob> header blocks to implement extensions like security.

                          The HTTP bindings in general seem to have overlooked the possible use of HTTP
                          headers, Cookie: headers in particular. I recently developed a sample WSDL
                          file for a SOAP service that uses cookies for authentication (the SOAP service
                          is based on users already being registered for other features of the site).
                          Other than the fact that a HTTP header would have the same limitation with
                          regards to complex data that the GET binding suffers from, it seems to me like
                          there could easily be a http:header (or even http:cookie) element for
                          specifying this kind of input.

                          Randy
                          --
                          """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
                          Randy J. Ray rjray@...
                          Campbell, CA rjray@...
                          <A HREF="http://www.svsm.org">Silicon Valley Scale Modelers</A>
                        • keith_ballinger
                          I would like to see three tests at the F2F: * some quick SOAP 1.2 echo tests, just to be sure nothing is broken * SOAP 1.2 header testing * attachments (I ll
                          Message 12 of 18 , Jul 2, 2002
                            I would like to see three tests at the F2F:

                            * some quick SOAP 1.2 echo tests, just to be sure nothing is broken
                            * SOAP 1.2 header testing
                            * attachments (I'll only be able to do DIME, but I don't a problem
                            doing DIME and MIME testing)

                            Thanks,
                            Keith

                            --- In soapbuilders@y..., Rich Salz <r.salz@v...> wrote:
                            > Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:
                            > > I would rather suggest we do SOAP 1.2 headers as they are
                            substantially
                            > > different from the SOAP 1.1.
                            >
                            > I agree.
                          • Sanjiva Weerawarana
                            This is a weakness in the WSDL 1.1 HTTP bindings that I d like to get fixed. If you have a concrete proposal on how to fix it please post it to the
                            Message 13 of 18 , Jul 3, 2002
                              This is a weakness in the WSDL 1.1 HTTP bindings that I'd like
                              to get fixed. If you have a concrete proposal on how to fix
                              it please post it to the www-ws-desc@... mailing list.

                              Thanks,

                              Sanjiva.

                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: <rjray@...>
                              To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 12:40 AM
                              Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] SOAP 1.2 GET binding


                              > >>>>> "Bob" == Bob Cunnings <cunnings@...>
                              > >>>>> wrote the following on Tue, 2 Jul 2002 09:32:46 -0700
                              >
                              > Bob> Worse yet, from what I gather the use of SOAP headers is precluded
                              by
                              > Bob> this scheme. I can scarce imagine a deployed service that wouldn't
                              use
                              > Bob> header blocks to implement extensions like security.
                              >
                              > The HTTP bindings in general seem to have overlooked the possible use of
                              HTTP
                              > headers, Cookie: headers in particular. I recently developed a sample WSDL
                              > file for a SOAP service that uses cookies for authentication (the SOAP
                              service
                              > is based on users already being registered for other features of the
                              site).
                              > Other than the fact that a HTTP header would have the same limitation with
                              > regards to complex data that the GET binding suffers from, it seems to me
                              like
                              > there could easily be a http:header (or even http:cookie) element for
                              > specifying this kind of input.
                              >
                              > Randy
                              > --
                              >
                              """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
                              """
                              > Randy J. Ray
                              rjray@...
                              > Campbell, CA
                              rjray@...
                              > <A HREF="http://www.svsm.org">Silicon Valley Scale Modelers</A>
                              >
                              > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                              > 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:
                              > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                              >
                              >
                            • Sanjiva Weerawarana
                              ... 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
                              Message 14 of 18 , Jul 3, 2002
                                "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.
                              • Jacek Kopecky
                                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
                                Message 15 of 18 , Jul 4, 2002
                                  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
                                  http://www.systinet.com/

                                  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.
                                  >
                                  >
                                • graham glass
                                  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
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Jul 4, 2002
                                    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.
                                     
                                    cheers,
                                    graham
                                    -----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
                                                       http://www.systinet.com/

                                    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:
                                    soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                                  • Rich Salz
                                    ... +1
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Jul 9, 2002
                                      > I would like to see three tests at the F2F:
                                      >
                                      > * some quick SOAP 1.2 echo tests, just to be sure nothing is broken
                                      > * SOAP 1.2 header testing
                                      > * attachments (I'll only be able to do DIME, but I don't a problem
                                      > doing DIME and MIME testing)

                                      +1
                                    • Jacek Kopecky
                                      Graham, I don t believe the GET MEP is thought of as experimental. It is necessary if we re binding SOAP to HTTP and want to allow web-friendly SOAP web
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Jul 24, 2002
                                        Graham,
                                        I don't believe the GET MEP is thought of as experimental. It is
                                        necessary if we're binding SOAP to HTTP and want to allow
                                        web-friendly SOAP web services. Of course, if the reality shows
                                        that web-friendly SOAP web services are impractical or if just
                                        nobody creates them, then of course the next version of SOAP may
                                        bring us a standard binding which won't have the HTTP
                                        (application protocol) issues about it and which will be simple
                                        and usable for the (then) current way of creating web services.
                                        Such binding would probably be a TCP binding. HTTP binding may
                                        then become unnecessary and even dropped from SOAP altogether, as
                                        SOAP and HTTP are not a really great match.
                                        This evolution can be helped greatly if somebody (soapbuilders?
                                        any big player?) comes up with a TCP binding (MS has DIME, but
                                        it's not really a protocol, it's just encapsulation, a protocol
                                        would have to be specified on top of it).
                                        Best regards,

                                        Jacek Kopecky

                                        Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
                                        http://www.systinet.com/



                                        On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, graham glass wrote:

                                        > 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.
                                        >
                                        > cheers,
                                        > graham
                                        > -----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
                                        > http://www.systinet.com/
                                        >
                                        > 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.
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                        > 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:
                                        > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                                        >
                                        >
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.