Re: issue: SOAP requirements

[James M Snell <jasnell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Tim Bray wrote:
> 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
>
>


<devils advocate hat on>
That's an argument to use POST for everything; not an argument that 
justifies making the use of SOAP optional in the spec.  We can HTTP POST 
 non-SOAP-enveloped <atom:feed /> and <atom:entry /> elements and still 
achieve the goal.  Sure, you'd still need a way of expressing the verb, 
but that could be done in other ways, such as a querystring parameter or 
an HTTP header.  Why is it necessary to wrap things in a SOAP envelope 
just to express a verb?  Or are there other reasons to pull in SOAP?

- James M Snell