Altova Mailing List Archives

Re: [xml-dev] The association of SOA with SOAP, and to the inevitable ends of religious wars

From: "bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@-----.--->
To: noah_mendelsohn@--.---.---
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 [1]:

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.


These Archives are provided for informational purposes only and have been generated directly from the Altova mailing list archive system and are comprised of the lists set forth on Therefore, Altova does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, reliability, completeness, usefulness, non-infringement of intellectual property rights, or quality of any content on the Altova Mailing List Archive(s), regardless of who originates that content. You expressly understand and agree that you bear all risks associated with using or relying on that content. Altova will not be liable or responsible in any way for any content posted including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in content, or for any losses or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of or reliance on any content. This disclaimer and limitation on liability is in addition to the disclaimers and limitations contained in the Website Terms of Use and elsewhere on the site.