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

Re: SOAP 1.2 GET binding

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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.