SOAP (see below for name and origins) is a
protocol for exchanging XML-based messages over
computer networks, normally using HTTP/HTTPS. SOAP forms the foundation layer of the
Web services stack, providing a basic messaging framework so that more
abstract layers can build on.
There are several different types of messaging patterns in SOAP, but by far the most common is the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) pattern, in which one network node (the client) sends a request
message to another node (the server) and the server immediately sends a response message to the client. SOAP is the
successor of XML-RPC, though it borrows its transport and interaction neutrality and the
envelope/header/body from elsewhere, probably from WDDX.[citation needed]
History
SOAP originally stood for Simple Object Access Protocol, and lately also Service Oriented Architecture Protocol,
but is now simply SOAP. The original acronym was dropped with Version 1.2 of the standard, which became a W3C Recommendation on
June 24 2003, as it was considered to be misleading. [1]
SOAP was originally designed by Dave Winer, Don Box, Bob
Atkinson, and Mohsen Al-Ghosein in 1998, with backing from Microsoft (where Atkinson and Al-Ghosein worked at the time), as an object-access protocol. The SOAP
specification is currently maintained by the XML Protocol Working Group of the World Wide Web Consortium.
Transport methods
SOAP makes use of an Internet application layer protocol as a transport protocol. Critics have argued that this is an abuse of
such protocols, as it is not their intended purpose and therefore not a role they fulfill well. Backers of SOAP have drawn
analogies to successful uses of protocols at various levels for tunneling other
protocols. [citation needed]
Both SMTP and HTTP
are valid application layer protocols used as Transport for SOAP, but HTTP
has gained wider acceptance as it works well with today's Internet infrastructure; specifically, SOAP works well with network
firewalls. SOAP may also be used over HTTPS (which
is the same protocol as HTTP at the application level, but uses an encrypted transport protocol underneath) in either simple or
mutual authentication; this is the advocated WS-I method to provide web
service security as stated in the WS-I Basic Profile 1.1, see [2]. This is a major
advantage over other distributed protocols like GIOP/IIOP or DCOM which are normally
filtered by firewalls. XML was chosen as the standard message format because of its widespread use
by major corporations and open source development efforts. Additionally, a wide variety of
freely available tools significantly eases the transition to a SOAP-based
implementation.
The somewhat lengthy syntax of XML can be both a benefit and a
drawback. Its format is possible for humans to read, but can be complex and can have slow processing times. For example,
CORBA, GIOP, ICE, and DCOM use much
shorter, binary message formats. On the other hand, hardware appliances are available to accelerate processing of
XML messages. [3][4]. Binary XML is also being explored as a means for streamlining the throughput
requirements of XML.
Technical critique
Numerous commentators and specialists have discussed the technical advantages and disadvantages of SOAP relative to
alternative technologies, and relative to the context of its intended use.
Advantages
- Using SOAP over HTTP allows for easier communication behind proxies and
firewalls than previous remote execution technology.
- SOAP is versatile enough to allow for the use of different transport protocols. The standard stacks use HTTP as a transport
protocol, but other protocols are also usable (e.g. SMTP).
Disadvantages
- Because of the verbose XML format, SOAP can be considerably slower than competing middleware technologies such as CORBA.
This may not be an issue when only small messages are sent[5]. On the other side, SOAP has Message Transmission
Optimization Mechanism. In addition, there are emerging non-extractive XML processing models (such as VTD-XML) that promises to significantly boost SOAP processing performance.
- When relying on HTTP as a transport protocol and not using
WS-Addressing or an ESB, the roles of the
interacting parties are fixed. Only one party (the client) can use the services of the other. Developers must use
polling instead of notification in these common cases.
- Many SOAP implementations limit the amount of data that can be sent.
- Most uses of HTTP as a transport protocol are done in ignorance of how the operation would be modelled in HTTP. This
agnosticism is by design (with analogy to how different protocols sit on top of each other in the IP stack) but the analogy is
imperfect (because the application protocols used as transport protocols are not really transport protocols). Because of this,
there is no way to know if the method used is appropriate to the operation. This makes good analysis of the operation at the
application-protocol level problematic at best with results that are at least sub-optimal (if the POST-based binding is used for
an application which in HTTP would be more naturally modelled as a GET operation), and which may be buggy (if, for example, the
GET based binding were used for an operation which did not have the idempotency required of
GET).
External links
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)