> On 5/19/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Because SOAP application semantics are defined by the application and
>> hence have nothing to do with HTTP semantics.
>
> That's simply not the case, Sanjiva.
>
> "GET" is as much a "SOAP application semantic" as "getStockQuote".
> It's just more generic, that's all; getStockQuote's only good for
> stock quotes, but GET is good for stock quotes, weather reports, and
> in fact, all information.
>
Right, so GET is more generic but the result is that I can get back a
much broader variety of information - How do I ensure I get back
something I can actually process usefully?
> It's why HTTP is an *application* protocol ... which has nothing to do
> with what those brought up on DCOM and CORBA know as a "protocol",
> i.e. "transports".
>
That feels a little like an artificial separation to me.
I could code at IIOP level in my application if I wanted to or I could
go through stubs etc that hide IIOP from me and allow me to establish
some other form of programming model in my application model.
I could code at HTTP level in my application or I could code at TCP/IP
level.
Am I not just coding at whatever level of abstraction suits me with
whatever protocol suits me to transfer whatever suits me. I can
transfer using TCP and I can transfer with HTTP?
Dan.
SPONSORED LINKS
| Computer software | Computer aided design software | Computer job |
| Soa | Service-oriented architecture |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "service-orientated-architecture" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
