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

Re: SOAP 1.2 GET binding

Expand Messages
  • simonfell99
    ... That reminds me, was the schema for Map from the F2F published ? Cheers Simon
    Message 1 of 18 , Jul 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- 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 2 of 18 , Jul 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 18 , Jul 2, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          +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 4 of 18 , Jul 2, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 18 , Jul 2, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 18 , Jul 2, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                >>>>> "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 7 of 18 , Jul 2, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 18 , Jul 3, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 18 , Jul 3, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      "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 10 of 18 , Jul 4, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 18 , Jul 4, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          one associated question is: given the relatively experimental nature of MEP, should it really
                          be in the SOAP 1.2 specification at all? perhaps it would be better to have a separate
                          document that contains descriptions of promising experimental features that if additional
                          thought prove compelling, move into the official specification. my fear is that things like MEP
                          sound cool to begin with, but end up introducing an avalanche of unanticipated complexity.
                          we already went through enough of that pain with the 1.1 specification, and many features
                          such as sparse arrays ended up getting swept under the carpet.
                           
                          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 12 of 18 , Jul 9, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > 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 13 of 18 , Jul 24, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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.