[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: What does SOAP really add?

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: What does SOAP really add?
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:35:26 -0700
• References: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCMEFNEHAA.julian.reschke@g...> <3CC577CE.5000702@r...> <3CC58C75.10306@t...> <3CC5A5E3.9020804@r...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020310

Francis Norton wrote:

> I'm not saying that the model is dead, just that the assumption that 
> there is no serious requirement for query parameters that are too 
> complex to be URL-encoded as a list of name-value pairs is no longer 
> valid.

Agreed.

 > I think I can see the advantages of  having these queries
> represented in a document-embeddable, idempotency-assumable form, but 
> unless someone provides a solution which provides these characteristics 
> for complex queries, then people will just use POST instead. Time will 
> tell, but at this point I'd be willing to bet a nice bottle of wine on 
> this outcome being apparent within the next six month

Interesting bet; I'll take it.  All we need is a document-embeddable,
idempotency-assumable form blessed officially and we're off to the
races.

> But I'm interested in passing schema-valid XML blocks as query 
> parameters, or representations thereof. Your proposal doesn't help much 
> there.

Agreed.  I'm after the low-hanging fruit.  If the GET mapping turns
out to be popular, maybe somebody real smart will figure out a good
way to to encode your blocks in a URL.

> Are you really comfortable asserting that there is and will be no 
> substantial requirement for safe/idempotent operations which have 
> parameters of  context-sensitive complexity rather than of FSM 
> complexity, which I think is what it boils down to?

I'm not asserting that at all.  Tons of safe/idempotent operations
right now are submitted by POST out of HTML forms, I've done it
myself, it's a fact of life.  All I'm saying is that if it's safe
and idempotent and simple enough to be able to represent as a URI
and make it part of the Web, and there's an easy way to do that,
why not do it?> If not, why don't we try to come up with a solution which meets your 
> requirements?

I've done that, I think. -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: What does SOAP really add?
    • From: Francis Norton <francis@r...>

• References:
  • RE: What does SOAP really add?
    • From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@g...>
  • Re: What does SOAP really add?
    • From: Francis Norton <francis@r...>
  • Re: What does SOAP really add?
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: What does SOAP really add?
    • From: Francis Norton <francis@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: What does SOAP really add?
• Next by Date: Re: What does SOAP really add?
• Previous by thread: Re: What does SOAP really add?
• Next by thread: Re: What does SOAP really add?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread