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

Re: [soapbuilders] Re: SOAP 1.2 GET binding

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