[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: issue: SOAP requirements

To: jasnell@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: issue: SOAP requirements
From: Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:44:11 -0800
Cc: Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, atom-protocol@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-protocol.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-protocol-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <> <>
Sender: owner-atom-protocol@xxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mar 16, 2005, at 8:52 PM, James M Snell wrote:

Better question: why bother with SOAP at all? Either make the Atom API a SOAP based thing or don't. I vote for getting rid of the SOAP option altogether unless someone can step up and give a solid defense for why it is absolutely necessary to be able to support such a thing.

Last time I checked, it was the only way to enable basic Java phones to talk Atom, since they don't support PUT/DELETE and the WG seems determined that the use of all four REST verbs is a big win. -Tim

Follow-Ups:
- Re: issue: SOAP requirements
  - From: Robert Sayre
- Re: issue: SOAP requirements
  - From: James M Snell

References:
- issue: SOAP requirements
  - From: Robert Sayre
- Re: issue: SOAP requirements
  - From: James M Snell

Prev by Date: Re: issue: SOAP requirements
Next by Date: Re: issue: Collection Document Fidelity
Previous by thread: Re: issue: SOAP requirements
Next by thread: Re: issue: SOAP requirements
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread