Re: issue: SOAP requirements

[Janne Jalkanen <jalkanen@xxxxxxxxx>]

The PaceAtomActionHeader does it all for J2ME with a lot less hassle
than SOAP (and has the added advantage of not needing base64).

I don't like SOAP either.  Too much excess baggage.

/Janne


On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 23:56:31 -0800, James M Snell <jasnell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
>