Re: Soap Over Beep Question

On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Marshall Rose wrote:

> > Either way, it seems that the SOAP/BEEP RFC is inadequate here because it
> > assumes the recipient has knowledge of the messaging pattern for a
> > particular message without giving the recipient any chance to figure it
> > out.
>
> uh, no. it's up to the soap folks to decide how to deal with this.
> beep, and soap-over-beep, just doesn't care.
>
> i could just as easily s/beep/http/g in the original note and the same
> issue exists. ditto for s/beep/smtp/g

Uh, no.

The beep/http binding does NOT specify that the recipient must send back a
HTTP 200 response "before processing the contents of the envelope."

Thats the problem. In fact, the HTTP bindings don't speak about one-way
messaging at all (which is too bad). I'm saying that the phrase under
consideration requires the recipient to know the message pattern before it
has any way of knowing it. Its a logical problem. At the very least I
think the language in this RFC is premature as it eliminates the
possibility of SOAP using a header to express the messaging pattern. The
only way I see out of this is using a BEEP header (ie along the lines of a
MIME header) which expresses the messaging pattern. That assumes the SOAP
people go with expressing the MEP at the transport level.

	-Gabe

-- 
Gabe Wachob                       [email protected]
Personal                       http://www.wachob.com
Founder, WiredObjects    http://www.wiredobjects.com