RE: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility

hi,

double agree,

please take off the sign ....


Abbie


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) 
> [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:07 AM
> To: Champion, Mike; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility
> 
> 
> 
> Agree.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Champion, Mike [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:53 AM
> To: '[email protected] '
> Subject: RE: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Geoff Arnold [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:27 AM
> > To: '[email protected] '
> > Subject: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility
> > 
> > > 
> > > Which says to me that sending a SOAP envelope with HTTP PUT means
> > > something different than sending it with POST (and any other 
> > > application protocol method, for that matter).
> 
> > 
> > If "means something different" affects the semantics of the SOAP
> > exchange at the application level, I think you've just 
> opened a large 
> > can of trout. Suppose I want to write a web service which 
> can support 
> > client interactions over HTTP, BXXP, JMS, or RFC1149 avian 
> transport. 
> > SOAP over JMS (or SOAP over carrier pigeon) doesn't have 
> any notion of
> 
> > PUT or POST.
> 
> Does anyone on the WG agree with Mark here?  Does anyone 
> interpret Noah Mendelsohn's comment to XMLP as implying what 
> Mark seems to think it implies?  I think [not wearing my 
> chair hat] that a SOAP message delivered with POST, PUT, or 
> carrier pigeon should  have the same semantics.  
> 
> I'd like to drain this trout pond.  I propose making sure 
> that the glossary definition of "protocol independence" 
> includes the concept that a Web service invocation has the 
> same effect irrespective of the protocol or protocol-level 
> features used to transmit it, and to action the editors to 
> use Dave Orchard's  discussion of "visibility" in the 
> document and glossary where appropriate.
> 
> That way we can move on, and Mark or whomever can raise a 
> formal issue that we will record and address for 
> consideration by others later in the W3C process.  Of course, 
> if someone on the WG wants to discuss this further, we can do that.
> 
> I'm sure this will be seen as another sign of "the 
> management" exerting schedule, but I think of it as just 
> taking down the "Gone Fishin'" sign off the office  door. :-)
> 
> 
> 
>