savas parastatidis

I absolutely agree…

… with Steve‘s comments about how the W3C TAG shouldn’t mandate a direct correlation between the wsa:To property and the underlying transport/application protocol-specific address. This would be similar to saying that every time I want to pay with my credit card by giving my credit card number, I have to tell the service provider how to communicate with my credit card company. I see SOAP messages travelling over arbitrary transport/application protocols (perhaps even as part of a single message exchange).

I want to build applications using SOAP without having to care about the semantics of what’s underneath. I perhaps care about the quality of service that the underlying protocols provide me (e.g. UDP vs TCP vs HTTP etc). However, such decisions may not have to be made until after I have developed my application.

2 responses to “I absolutely agree…”

  1. Srdjan
    Savas, I agree with your view on this. One question that I have for you is in regards to mentioning HTTP as one of the underlying protocols. We use SOAP instead, no? Isn’t SOAP tunneling trough HTTP something we hope not to see in the future? Thanks, Srdjan
  2. Savas Parastatidis
    HTTP is here to stay for the next few years. I hope to see SOAP outlive HTTP. Whatever happens, however, we are definitely going to see applications utilising SOAP over other communication protocols in order to get different quality of service (e.g., over tcp, udp, etc.).