Altova Mailing List Archives
>xml-dev Archive Home
>Thread Prev - Re: [xml-dev] The association of SOA with SOAP, and to the inevitable ends of religious wars
>Thread Next - Re: [xml-dev] The association of SOA with SOAP, and to the inevitable endsof religious wars
Re: [xml-dev] The association of SOA with SOAP, and to the inevitable ends of religious wars
Date: 12/5/2007 4:08:00 PM
On Dec 5, 2007 3:54 PM, <noah_mendelsohn@u...> wrote: > > Bryan Rasmussen writes: > > > That SOAP did not identify bindings for GET was I think its downfall > > (sorry, I believe in the war metaphor). > > Oh, come on. The tone of this discussion is pretty disappointing for a > variety of reasons, but if you make a statement like this please at least > read the pertinent specifications. Sorry I wasn't trying to say anything bad about SOAP at the moment I had just noticed a retrenchment of SOA and was wondering about that. Anyway I am sorry about the negative tone, I was trying to make it a jovial tone, at least in the first mail. Perhaps my interpretation of what passes for jovial strikes most others as egregious attacks. Sorry, I was mauled by Santa when young. > Quoting what is probably the most > relevant part of the SOAP 1.2 Recommendation : Well I did read them in about 2003 and did have to look through again in 2004 (but that was a partial look through), and that was the time of the last SOAP based service I had to do any work on (as opposed to consuming which I still have to do some, oh actually had to do one small one recently but it was negligible) So I will admit that I had forgotten there was anything whatsoever that said this part, although it is true that I see something like it in the testing interface to webservices generated from MS tools which will take a query string parameter for an RPC style call. It don't think it translates well to document literal requirements, and as noted it is a binding for RPC only right? But you're right, there is some binding described. I was wrong and made an over-assertion of the lack of a feature. A non-mandated binding is not the same as no binding (as I read the spec it is non-mandated right, it's in a section that SHOULD be followed but the example binding itself is a might? Thus the point you make that some implementations have not supported this?), furthermore as I understand the above this binding would be secondary to the mandated POST binding? That is to say the service would have to accept taking a POST it couldn't just return a method not allowed and go on from there? But anyway I wasn't trying to dredge up the SOAP argument. In the second and third email I went further out on the line for that but it certainly wasn't what I started to do. As such I guess the conversation is disappointing for me as well, since there wasn't anything about SOAP itself I was interested in. Sorry. > > > Supporting GET is the easy part; > the hard part is building tooling that uses URIs in the right way so that > each stock quote gets its own, as opposed to just having one "QuotesRUS" URI > that serves lots of quotes. > Well, depending on the technology and the webserver.