Re: [soapbuilders] SOAP 1.2 [was Fifth interop meeting]
I'm trying to get a handle on this implementation wise. So what would this
"unique URI" look like? Is it possible to implement this new pattern without
somehow encoding request/query parameters into the URI used for a GET, at
least for some cases? If this is not possible, then the prerequisite must be
the development of a scheme for doing this, which SOAP 1.2 explicitly does
not provide. Of course there's been a lot of discussion on this subject on
various lists, but it's been inconclusive so far. If found necessary, does
the development of such a scheme fall within the scope of the interop
> Bob Cunnings wrote:the
> > 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 ?
> 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
> 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 getand
> pragmatic points of view as to how implementers hope to deal with this,
> how they'd like it to work. Noah Mendelsohn independently made the same
> suggestion to me via phone this morning.
> 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
>  http://markbaker.blogspot.com/2002_06_01_markbaker_archive.
>  http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=axis-dev&m=102549541830057&w=2
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part2/#soapresmep
- My 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? :)