On 7/24/07, Eric Newcomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Yes, I agree SOAP can be used quite RESTfully, have often said so, and find > it one of the constant sources of frustration in these endless SOAP vs REST > debates, whenever REST proponents characterize SOAP as completely anti-REST > and only mention it's RPC style.
I don't know any REST proponent who's said that, Eric. But it doesn't really matter, because while SOAP can be used RESTfully in theory, in practice it isn't and can't. I can count on one hand the number of implementations I've seen which don't assume that either "SOAP action", the GED, or "wsa:Action" prescribes an operation in a SOAP envelope, or that "wsa:To" doesn't prescribe the endpoint (both of which nullify HTTP compatibility). The SOAP spec is deliberately vague in several important ways about what a SOAP envelope means so that it can accommodate being used in multiple (architectural) styles. That might sound like a good thing, but it isn't, because it means that a given SOAP envelope can have multiple meanings. Is there any wonder that interop is so poor? Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
