[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Paul Prescod wrote:
>Francis Norton wrote:
>
>>Two problems with this - first, the the bug appears to extend to the
>> implementation of mime for input - at least, I can telnet a
>>application/x-www-form-urlencoded POST to my VS.Net application, but not
>>a text/xml one. Could be operator malfunction, of course, and I agree
>>that the WSDL note appears to permit this idiom.
>>
>
>I didn't mean to imply otherwise. The term "bug" was correct from the
>point of view of the spec, but it probably not really an implementation
>bug. Clearly they've decided to support some parts of the WSDL/HTTP
>binding and not others. Perhaps it was one of those not-enough-time
>issues.
>
Anyone know how difficult it would be to implement a server that
accepted mime-encoded HTTP POST requests? The C# documentation appears
to suggest it should be supported by the HttpRequest object, in which
case it should be trivial. It seemed a bit weird to me, but that may
just be my lack of experience this close to the wire.
>>.... But secondly, the the
>>parameters for my transaction are in fact for a database query, which
>>HTTP 1.1 appears to say [1] is an incorrect use of POST.
>>
>
>Although this would technically work, I agree that this is a misuse of
>POST. But no less a misuse if you wrap it in SOAP:Envelope elements!
>
Yep, I was being picky. I was a SOAP + Schema supporter when SOAP
appeared to solve my XML parameter problems in a way that url-encoded
POSTs couldn't (and mime on input never to me), but I now see WSDL +
Schema as a more relevent resolution to my requirements, and I'm moving
towards transport agnosticism. [But didn't the ancient Greeks have a
penalty for those who took no part in matters of great controversy?
Their spirit lives on in xml-dev!]
Francis.
|
