RE: Do RESTifarians want anything from the WSA that they don't al ready have?
"Champion, Mike" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.services.ws-arch |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Baker [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 1:57 PM > To: Champion, Mike > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Do RESTifarians want anything from the WSA that > they don't > already have? > > > For sure, there's all sorts of new extensions we can > identify, including many that people have been talking about > all along; transactions, > conversations, reliability, routing, etc... Dare I hope that you would find the SOAP 1.2 header extension mechanism a Web-friendly means of communicating the state of transactions, conversations, reliability, etc.? GET's are obviously going to be a bit of a problem, For example, how does one communicate the security information that one might put in a SOAP header on a GET operation? I guess the URI could encode the header, maybe hashing or otherwise compressing things like namespace URIs that tend to be long .... Thoughts?