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

["bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@gmail.com>]

On Dec 5, 2007 3:54 PM,  <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> 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.