On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 05:49:43AM -0400, Sam Ruby wrote: > Mark Baker wrote: > > You guys are losing me. > > OK, I will try to speak in one syl a ble words this time. [*]
Hey old man, don't taunt the n00b! > > Sam's suggestion to punt the retrieval of the response is fine from > > this POV, but I wonder what developers would think of it, and I'm not > > sure it would technically be conformant to the spec (though maybe the > > spec needs fixing). > > This innuendo I find deeply disturbing. Oh, please don't. I seriously meant that last bit about considering changing the spec if your approach wasn't deemed compliant. > I believe that you are mixing meta levels. The setOperation name is a > way to modify the name of the root element of the soap body. It's name > may be unfortunate, as it presupposes a presumes a purpose for that > element, but such a bias is explainable given that the name of that > method was defined in a specification named "JAX RPC". I understand. But is it not primarily the intent of that operation to invoke a method on an object identified by a URI? Every example I've seen uses it that way. It's also entirely consistent with invoking GET or PUT or POST on an object identified by a URI. > > I understand that this a very different way of thinking of SOAP, i.e. > > not as a layer, but that's what the Web Method feature is for; exposing > > HTTP, through SOAP, to the developer. > > I just want to note that at some point, many developer don't want to > think in terms of HTTP or SOAP, but rather in terms like > getQuantityInStock(PartNumber="123"). How is that different than this; GET /quantity-in-stock?partnumber=123 ? MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
