I thought the SimpleObjectAccessProtocol
, by definition, tied you to the HyperTextTransferProtocol
. While there have been numerous discussions about 'transplanting' the XML document + HTTP headers that comprise a SOAP bar to other transports (SmtpProtocol?
et. al), I thought the message from DevelopMentor
was while people could happily do that, just don't call it SOAP.
The details of the message at http://discuss.develop.com/archives/wa.exe?A2=ind9909&L=SOAP&P=R4617, from DonBox, point to the fact that DevelopMentor has anticipated the desire to use different TransportProtocols and used a PluggableChannel? architecture in their COM implementation. Though, I'm not sure if this applies to the Perl and/or Java implementations as well. -- DrewMarsh
might have anticipated the desire to do something SOAP-like over protocols other that HyperTextTransferProtocol
. , but I still don't think that that means this is SOAP.
See this post at http://discuss.develop.com/archives/wa.exe?A2=ind9911&L=SOAP&P=R11471: Strictly speaking, SOAP means XML encoded call stacks sent over HTTP. If you want to send XML encoded call stacks over other protocols, then, strictly speaking, you aren't doing SOAP. But that doesn't stop what you are doing from being easy, useful, or easy to integrate with SOAP, so go for it!
Of course, am I being a little pedantic about this - probably. I'm sure there'll end up being plenty of SOAP-like implementations in the near future - it'll being interesting to see what other protocols (my bet would be primarily ontop of the SmtpProtocol?
) SOAP-like stuff gets done on.
By definition, you're correct. SOAP, being defined (loosely) as "XmlPackets? sent over the HyperTextTransferProtocol", is obviously not SOAP if there's no HyperTextTransferProtocol. ;)
I guess it's just that when I think of SOAP, I think of it as the XmlSchema for the packets... not so much the fact that they're sent over the HyperTextTransferProtocol. I, of course, am wrong to identify it this way, but then what do we call the XmlSchema by itself...?
Actually, I take this all back - it sounds like the SOAP payload and the fact that it's transmitted over HTTP are supposed to be entirely independent. See http://www.develop.com/soap/issues.htm
: ''The SOAP/1.0 specification implies HTTP will be used to transport SOAP method calls. Additionally, the IETF format does not allow the display of the following sentence from Section 5 in bold flashing red text:
- It is worth noting that the rules governing XML payload format in SOAP are entirely independent of the fact that the payload is carried over an HTTP transport.
Ok, definitive answer from the SOAP people:
- There was discussion at the SOAP BOF of splitting out the transport (HTTP) from the messaging (XML), so that additional transports can be supported (and still called SOAP). This is the way PPP is now... PPP over async, PPP over Sonet, PPP over HDLC, etc.
"There was discussion at the SOAP BOF of splitting out the transport (HTTP) from the messaging (XML), so that additional transports can be supported..." That's how we're doing it within ebXML. -- Dick Brooks http://www.8760.com