Re: issue: SOAP requirements

[Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoting 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 am deeply -1 on PaceAtomActionHeader. I found that using SOAP for PUT/DELETE
wasn't a big deal on J2ME. DELETEs were reasonably quick, and the SOAP wrapper
becomes less and less of a factor as the entry grows in size for PUTs.

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

I wouldn't say I like it, but it seems to work. Inventing a custom header for
one type of client is not a good idea. SOAP seems like the most inclusive back
up.

Robert Sayre