Talk:SOAP/Archive 1

SOAP info
This artice mostly compares SOAP to something. But it does not tell anything about archhitecture or formats or procedures of SOAP. So it tells nothing about it. 194.100.12.194 (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The articles says: "Typically, SOAP is about 10 times slower than binary network protocols such as RMI or IIOP. Of course, this is not an issue when only small messages are sent."

That second sentence is not true, is it? I suggest it be deleted entirely. If it is going to stay, it wants to be accurate. For example:

"Typically, SOAP{| class="wikitable" is about 10 times slower than binary network protocols such as RMI or IIOP. Of course, this is not an issue when only small messages are sent and they are sent and received infrequently."

Is this a real figure? SOAP is about *10* times slower? I do not think that it is. Perhaps you shouldn't throw such an opinionated view by saying something more like:

"SOAP messages which are comprised of XML text are typically larger in size and therefore slower than RMI or IIOP which use a binary format. With larger messages this difference becomes exponential.

Joaquin

NOT "exponential"! Perhaps "this difference becomes important." Exponential has a precise mathematical meaning, which likely does not apply. For instance, suppose one can substantiate the claim that SOAP is 100 times slower than binary formats: this is NOT exponentially slower. Brute-force password hacking is a genuine example of something exponential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.207.226.76 (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Article name
Since SOAP is no longer an acronym, would it ₥ make sense to move this page to SOAP (or something like "SOAP (computer protocol)")?
 * }
 * }
 * }]]]]


 * I'd like to know (and article should probably state) why/when this became no longer an acronym. Elf | Talk 22:30, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * As far as I know it is because it's neither a simple nor (just) an object access (it's capable of transmitting any XML message) protocol. --Ondrejsv 07:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any record of the discussion that led to the name change but I can tell you what I've heard. Until version 1.1, the recommendation (to split hairs, it isn't technically a "standard") was called "Simple Object Access Protocol".  This name never did really fit: it has never had anything in particular to do with accessing objects, and even the initial version was never particularly simple, especially when compared to its progenitor XML-RPC (and don't even get me started about the various SOAP add-ons like WS-Security, WS-Transaction, WS-ReliableMessaging, and WS-KitchenSink).  I gather there was at least one faction in favor of renaming it "Services Oriented Access Protocol", but instead the expansion was dropped completely and in version 1.2 of the recommendation it is simply called "SOAP".  -Saucepan 06:11, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Further to the above, I've repointed the all-uppercase SOAP redirect to this article from the disambig page. This article is currently the most likely intended destination for someone looking for "SOAP" with all uppercase, and has prominent disambiguation links for those cases where I'm wrong.  If nobody objects, in a day or so I'll finish the job by moving this article to SOAP and leaving behind a redirect.  -Saucepan 00:41, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I think something should be added to the article explaining why it's now "formerly". It's what caught my attention, yet there was no reason for stating it. RedWolf 22:03, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * That caught my eye too. But I think its enough explanation to specify when the SOAP specification started saying "It's no longer an acronym." That's Version 1.2. I added that info when I rewrite the introductory paragraphs for readability. Isaac R 05:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Might SOAP now be considered a backronym for Service-Oriented Architecural Pattern? CptJoker 03:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Osi 5 ?
since when is soap level5? it uses http. 88.73.235.167 (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

SOAP type information
Where's the embedded type information in the example? All the on-the wire SOAP transactions I've seen recently have embedded type info. -- The Anome 22:07, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * That would be RPC-style SOAP, in which there's no document schema but the type information is inlined. It tends to be used by Axis and tools based on it (mostly Java).  The example in the article is based on a capture of .NET traffic and uses Document-style SOAP.  In Document-style, the WSDL includes or refers to a schema, and the sender assumes the recipient has the schema and so knows the types already.  (If you are thinking that this sounds like a bit of a mess you are quite right IMO.)  I guess the article could use some explanation of the different styles of SOAP.


 * I used Document-style messages for the examples just because they were the sample messages I had laying around. My current feeling is that RPC-style type info would tend to clutter the example and confuse readers unused to XML schemas, detracting from the goal of presenting a simple, high-level overview. (This is the same reason I left out the XML Byte Order Mark.) Saucepan 22:54, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

''Somebody help to include the more common variants in the main page please? A reference to a more detailed discussion elsewhere would help too.'' 203.9.186.134 03:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I am wondering if this (SOAP) will make a resurgence as Microsoft has patented the Serialization and Deserialazion of XML streams to Program Objects (JAVA specificly... little revenge for SUN winning the JAVA case vs Microsoft?). Might be worth a discussion. 67.171.245.44 23:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Frankmon

"All protocols"???
The nitpicker in me doesn't like the statement "SOAP can be run on top of all the Internet Protocols...". All protocols??? NTP? Ping? I think the statement needs to be qualified somehow, but I don't know enough about SOAP to do it myself. Something like "SOAP can be run on top of all protocols that support exchange of text bundles..." Isaac R 05:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

layperson intro
To resume several comments that were already made below: the big picture of this article gets bypassed for technical detail very quickly. It would be helpful if someone could add section near the beginning, for the layperson reader, which gives a few sentences of concrete illustration of a service (real or hypothetical) that uses SOAP, and how it SOAP fits into that picture. The example used in the syntax section is a good start, but to make it more concrete explain what the 'client' might be (a checkout register? a handheld inventory counter?) and why SOAP might have been chosen to access the warehouse data (it was offsite, accessed over internet; and it already supported SOAP and the users wanted to interface to something using a standard they already knew, and didn't need high performance? I'm just throwing things out here... someone pls provide a meaningful illustration that visitors can grasp quickly.  I suspect the vast majority of people reading this page are just here to try to quickly understand a reference that was made to SOAP somewhere else, and very few readers will proceed into the details and debates. Many of the external sites do not provide good introductions either, so wikipedia could contribute something useful here. It would be great also if the External References were partitioned into "introductory material" vs "technical references". DKEdwards 22:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
I tried to read through the article from the perspective of someone trying to learn what SOAP is, and I think we need to work on it quite a bit. The article dives into too many technical details and provides very little in terms of general definition and explanation -- it needs to focus more on answering the question "what is SOAP?" David 11:51, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)


 * I was looking at this article literally twenty minutes ago thinking exactly the same thing. I'm new to Wikipedia, and so I hesitated to Be bold in updating pages and tag it for cleanup. In any case, I totally support this. Pojo 16:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Did my rewrite of the opening hurt or help? Don't spare my feelings! Isaac R 20:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's a start but honestly, I feel like the whole opening section (before "Contents") needs to be obliterated and rewriten in layman's terms. Pojo 14:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Always a desirable goal, but difficult to achieve in this case. Take the very first sentence, which says that "SOAP is a light-weight protocol"? What's the layperson's term for "lightweight protocol"? Bear in mind that you can't just leave the concept out -- it's a key part of the definition.---Isaac R 17:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The light-weight part is actually fairly controversal inside the technical community -- many people, especially REST supporters, characterize SOAP as heavy-weight. I'd suggest taking "light-weight" out of the introduction and putting it under history, something along the lines of "SOAP was designed to be a light-weight protocol" or "SOAP's designers intended for it to be a light-weight protocol", without trying to prejudice the article either way.  In any case, I don't think that we need to target laypeople who are completely ignorant of computers, so much as people who are familiar with computers but not with SOAP.  David 17:42, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
 * "so much as people who are familiar with computers but not with SOAP" I agree, that seems fair. There's no point trying to explain SOAP to someone who's still looking for the any key. :) Pojo
 * If "lightweight" is controversial, then it certainly needs to be removed from the definition. But I don't think we necessarily have to find a place for it elsewhere. Material on the controversy might improve the article, but I don't think adding it is an immediate priority. ---Isaac R 18:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I redid the beginning of this article, adding a brief "layperson" definition. There is no getting around the fact this is a technical subject that requires a certain foundation of information. However, I think a brief non-technical introduction gives the best of both worlds. Let me know what y'all think. --RobertDaeley 20:05, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- I think that's a good start for all of us to build on. David 00:06, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. I really hate that definition. It's one of those vague pseudo-explanations that don't really improve anybody's understanding of a topic. Robert, please don't take this as a criticism of you're writing skill. You did your best to do something that's just not possible: explain a concept, SOAP, without reference to any of the other concepts SOAP builds upon. Bad idea. At least with the old version, people could identify concepts they weren't familiar with, and follow hyperlinks to improve their knowledge of them.---Isaac R 22:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No worries, Issac -- I figured this was just a starting point. :) --RobertDaeley 17:15, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the introduction to try to make it clearer. The first sentence answers the question "what is SOAP?" directly, and the rest puts SOAP in a broader technical context rather than diving down into minor details.  I've also corrected the history of SOAP. Let's use this as a starting point, and see if we can refine it even a little more.  David 02:40, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, but I have a quibble. You say "soap is a standard", instead of "soap is a protocol". I think the more specific word is better, even if it does have the taint of computerese. ---Isaac R 03:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. I chose standard not to be less technical, but to avoid quibbles -- the SOAP standard defines both transmission protocols and message formats; in fact, I'm not sure if we could call it a single protocol in any case, since it has so many variations, like RPC, asynchronous.  David 14:45, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

I'm trying to cleanup the article so it is easier for the average reader to understand. I think that the introduction is okay now, although still a little heavy on the technical jargon. The example section seems out of place. Any suggestions? Ben Babcock 05:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to be harsh Ben, but I'm afraid I don't much care for your work. Did you notice the convesation (just above on this talk page) about "protocol" versus "standard"? And no, your cutting necessary technical terms does not make the explanation more accessible -- just harder to follow. Also, your assertion that SOAP is still an acronym is mistaken -- as described elsewhere in the article!  ---Isaac R 05:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I did notice that conversation. The criticism is well-deserved, as I am not familiar with SOAP.  The W3C defines it as a "lightweight protocol" however and I chose to go with that definition.  I kept the last paragraph where it mentions that the acronym no longer applies, even though it was originally an acronym.
 * The crux of the matter is, of course, the technical terms. Obviously this isn't done all in one shot.  Perhaps keep the entire introduction very simple, but then move the necessary technical information to the body of the article?  If we do that, then the average person can get a basic understanding of what SOAP is, while those who want to continue can read the entire article. . . .Ben Babcock 06:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Ben did an excellent job using simple, clear language, but unfortunately his rewrite introduced some inaccuracies and removed some essential information (for example, the main reason people care about SOAP is the fact that it's part of web services, so the intro needs to mention web services somehow). I've reverted for now.  David 11:22, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)


 * I've created a temporary SOAP page. We can edit this one until we can agree on the right balance between technical accuracy and plain language, then place its content on the actual SOAP page.  So far I've just reorganized the bottom links alphabetize them.
 * I still think the introduction part of the article is too long and detailed, and that some of the information should be moved to a subsection of its own, so we can keep the introduction shorter and easier to understand at a glance. Ben Babcock 18:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've rearranged my temporary article. The first two paragraphs have been preserved because they contribute to a simple but accurate introduction.  I moved the third paragraph into an "Overview" section, which also includes the "Transport Methods" section now.  I included information about the way a SOAP message is structured, and then placed the examples as a subsection of that. Ben Babcock 00:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Page updated to reflect the rewritten version, which has hopefully maintained the technical accuracy while making it easier to read. Ben Babcock 04:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see some criticisms mentioned. I'll write something and get opinions. 203.216.0.91 01:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

broken link
It just might not be my day, but the external link "Dave Winer's history of SOAP" appears to be broken.

- On 8 May 2006 the link is fine. Jebbo 17:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

URI PROXY etc; programming examples
The Perl POD for  mentions URL, PROXY etc. I'll keep roaming, and hopefully add some usefull content later. (maybe a wikibook humm...) Supaplex 20:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Circumvention of security?
SOAP's use of the HTTP protocoll to get through firewalls is praised in the article. I'm not a security expert, but isn't this a circumvention of one of the security mechanisms that administrators have to prevent code from being invoked on their systems from outside?

Would it have been deemed acceptable for CORBA or DCOM to use port 80 just because it is open? Any security experts here who could shed some light on this aspect of SOAP.

62.242.39.226 08:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way to describe this is that firewalls don't so much block threats, as implement security policy. If I'm the security administrator at company X, and that company decides that RealAudio is inappropriate, it is my job to block that traffic. If the application decides to tunnel through HTTP port 80 (which is approved for the transport of HTML pages), then my firewall has to get smarter and do Deep Packet Inspection and other such tricks to go hunt out the RealAudio data, so that my security policy is correctly enforced.

The myth is that using port 80 (HTTP) makes traversing the firewall easier. The fact is, the organization has shut off other ports because they don't conform to the security policy. The proper approach is to revise the security policy and include the appropriate firewall rules to allow that traffic. In reality, this rarely happens, and everyone and his brother uses port 80. This makes life for the firewalls a lot harder, but they can usually track down traffic which isn't permitted.

Using a different port makes sense. It allows for flow identification purely on the basis of the IP port, so things like RSVP and other bandwidth prioritisation techniques can be used effectively. It also allows for proper granularity of firewall policy. It's not like they're particularly scarce or anything.

User:Dtynan February 9th, 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC).

More abstract layers?
The very first sentence of this article says "providing a basic messaging framework that more abstract layers can build on" -- isn't this an oxymoron? Shouldn't it be more *concrete* layers that build on an *abstract* framework? --HeXetic 16:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

'Simple Object Access Protocol'
From the article: "At the time of the creation of the standard, SOAP was an acronym for 'Simple Object Access Protocol'. Version 1.2 of the standard, which became a W3C Recommendation on June 24, 2003, dropped this acronym as it was considered to be misleading." Can someone please add a comment in the article explaining why it was considered misleading? Kaimiddleton 17:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyway, the acronym wasn't dropped; its elaboration was disfavored. (Apparently.  I'm not an expert.  I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.) Robert K S 13:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Protocol?
SOAP is not a "protocol". SOAP is a message format. It defines a set of tags and structure of an XML message composed of those tags. There is really no protocol. One can build protocols with it, and the XML is transferred over a protocol like HTTP, but by itself SOAP is not a protocol. Goflow6206 06:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)goflow6206


 * SOAP is a protocol by definition. A protocol is a set of rules which is used by computers to communicate with each other across a network.  SOAP specifies the syntax and semantics of information that is passed from one server to another. ✅  kgrr  talk 21:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Generic SOAP Client
From the External Links: Generic SOAP Client is timing out .... Kaimiddleton 17:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Tests ok. ✅  kgrr  talk 21:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Misses the point entirely
In my opinion, as someone who has used SOAP, I can confirm that the authors of this article have missed the point completely. After reading the article it gives the impression that SOAP is merely an upgrade to XML-RPC. As if it just wrinkles out some minor issues. It doesn't talk about the true difference, which is, that SOAP understands instances of objects and XML-RPC does not. SOAP (which has the word OBJECT in it for a reason) (and this phrase should be used, it's so accurate)... *allows you to extend ONE UML CLASS DIAGRAM over TWO distinct computer programs running in different places on a network.* This cannot be done using XML-RPC. XML-RPC merely presents a single flat API. Session keys and ID's need to be passed backwards and forwards in communication. With SOAP a programmer can simply connect to a SOAP server and get an object (without having to cast or parse XML at all) and do things like call methods on that object. It doesn't need to pass references and ID's around. Perhaps I could sum it up with this similee: *SOAP is to XML-RPC what C++ is to C.*

I'm ashamed you haven't understood this and that you (whoever you are) have created an article which is merely about your knowledge of XML-RPC.

Why is there a weaknesses section without a benefits? Why is the main part of the argument about one persons gripe with the fact that SOAP uses HTTP?

This is a poor article at best. I would like to put it's accuracy into question.


 * then fix it? it's a wiki. 88.73.235.167 (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Negative Tone
In my opinion, this article has too much editorial and focuses on the negative aspects of SOAP as if it is trying to make an argument against using it instead of informing users about it. I agree with the previous comment: there is a "Weaknesses" section, but it is not balanced by a "Strengths" section. While it is certainly good to list pros and cons, again, it is just my opinion that such judgments should be kept separate from the informative content itself.Dprust 17:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Also there are very good reasons for 'abusing' HTTP as a transport protocol, none of which are mentioned in this article.


 * Excellent point! Dprust 17:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it focuses on weaknesses more than on pro arguments. Maybe we can balance with a "Stength" or "Advantages" section ?
 * Dockurt2k 18:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I modified the structure to create a Pro and Con sections with advantages and Weaknesses as subsection. I put two advantages yet. We can still find other pro (and cons by the way).Dockurt2k 18:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, some arguments like Many SOAP implementations limit the amount of data that can be sent. really does not fit the wikipedia standards IMO which implementations? what limits? does it matter? Then Most uses of HTTP as a transport protocol ... the idempotency required of GET looks completely obscure verbiage to me. --Joannes Vermorel 16:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * the transparent tunneling is a good reason why soap could be used. :Sterremix (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC) added.

Merge proposal
Strangely, entering 'Simple Object Access Protocol' into the search box redirects to a different page, but one whose title is shown as 'SOAP' (same as this article). On the other hand, the link directly to 'Simple Object Access Protocol' leads to this version of 'SOAP' article. This is very confusing. How can two articles with identic names exists? Could this be a bug in the Wiki software? Apart from the technical problems, there should certainly be only one article about SOAP. Micha&amp;#322; Kosmulski (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, there aren't two articles with the same name. The SOAP article bears SOAP as its name, and the other article bears "Simple Object Access Protocol" as its name. Furthermore, the article with the long version of the name is simply a redirect to the SOAP article. In short, when you go to the long name version, you simply end up at SOAP. The merge proposal is kind of void that way, as there is nothing in the other article to merge into this one. Its sole reason for existence is to guide people who type the full name to the short named version. -- Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 22:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This merge proposal makes no sense. There's already a re-direct in place, which does the trick. -65.93.62.238 (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Michał Kosmulski (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize the proposal seems somewhat strange at this moment, but when I wrote it, I experienced exactly the behavior described in there - i.e. I was seeing two different pages about SOAP, depending on the way I got to the page. One version had a greenish infobox with links to many different network protocols while the other one didn't. I thought for a moment it could have been someone editing the page just the very moment I was reloading it, but edit history doesn't seem to confirm this theory. So I don't know what really happened there and confused me so much. I guess we can close this thread for now, hopefully this behavior (which I suspect could have been some strange mediawiki bug) won't happen any more.


 * Upto the point —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.215.11 (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Simple Object Access Protocol" and "SOAP" both link to the same article. ✅ kgrr  talk 21:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Search engine
Right now, the top google hit for soap is SOAP instead of Soap. In fact, Soap doesn't even show up on the first page. It's kind of ridiculous ... anyone know why this is? --Duk 20:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Google is not case sensitive. More people are looking for an article about SOAP than Soap.  ✅   kgrr  talk 21:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

books
Add to Personal Folders by David Hunter, Kurt Cagle, Chris Dix et al. Wrox Press © 2003 (784 pages) Citation ISBN:9780764543944
 * Beginning XML, 2nd Edition: XML Schemas, SOAP, XSLT, DOM, and SAX 2.0

- This book teaches you all you need to know about XML--what it is, how it works, what technologies surround it, and how it can best be used in a variety of situations, from simple data transfer to using XML in your web pages. Add to Personal Folders 	Visit Companion Web Site by Kennard Scribner and Mark C. Stiver Sams © 2000 (514 pages)  Archive Citation ISBN:9780672319228
 * Understanding SOAP

- Covers Microsoft's latest standard, "Simple Object Access Protocol." Show All Section Hits Top Section Hits (of 44 in this title) Show Top ToC All Section Hits 3% 	Understanding SOAP 3% 	Appendix A: The SOAP 1.1 Specification 3% 	Appendix C: A Look into Late-Breaking Technologies That Support SOAP Relevant Chapters in the Table of Contents

Add to Personal Folders 	Visit Companion Web Site by Paul Reinheimer Wrox Press © 2006 (378 pages) Citation ISBN:9780764589546
 * Professional Web APIs with PHP: eBay, Google, PayPal, Amazon, FedEx, Plus Web Feeds

- With details on how how to integrate different APIs and web feeds in PHP so websites can leverage content from eBay, Google, PayPal, Amazon, and FedEx, this hands-on guide takes you step by step through each stage of the API process. Show All Section Hits Top Section Hits (of 14 in this title) Show Top ToC All Section Hits 7% 	Chapter 5: Introduction to Web APIs (REST or SOAP?)

kgrr talk 00:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

SOAP is versatile enough to allow for the use of different transport protocols
There's no indication that this is an advantage of SOAP over other web services. While it might go on the page, it shouldn't go under 'Advantages' without a better source.-69.143.48.114 (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

PERL support
Perl has a number of modules for SOAP, XML, HTML etc. See: CPAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.228.9.100 (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

incorrect cite
The article provided as a cite regarding ignorance doesn't actually support the statement. Tedickey (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Most uses of HTTP as a transport protocol are done in ignorance of how the operation would be modeled in HTTP" is just a different way of saying "Since the publishing of SOAP 1.0, a number of people have complained about its reliance on the HTTP POST method. Many felt that SOAP utilized a popular protocol (HTTP) but showed little respect and understanding for the architecture it was built upon." (exact quote from the referenced article), so I don't agree that this is an incorrect cite.


 * Your comment disagrees without providing any useful information TEDickey (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Search for SOAP
I'm new to this wiki stuff, but when I used the search box on the left to search for "soap" it only came back with one result for soap (as in bar of soap). It does return the SOAP entry if you search all-uppercase but I'm not sure most people will do this. I wonder if this situation could be improved by adding a suffix to the entry title. Alternatively should we alert the admin crew that the search is case-sensitive?


 * "soap" redirects to the article "Soap". It looks like this has been corrected.  ✅

yeah this is done —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.220.8.2 (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Potentially negative impact of firewalls is applicable to all non-browsing HTTP activity
Under consideration is the paragraph beginning with this statement in the Disadvantages section: "When relying on HTTP as a transport protocol, a firewall designed to only allow web browsing is forced to perform more detailed (and thus more costly) analysis of the HTTP packages."

The impacts SOAP activity may have with firewalls is in no way unique to SOAP. This same argument can be levied against REST, XML-RPC, AJAX, anything using JSON, etc.

This argument or disadvantage does not belong in this article, nor does it belong in articles for REST, AJAX, etc. The final sentence of this paragraph, "This is why it is generally a bad idea to use a transfer protocol such as HTTP as a transport protocol for which it was not designed." clarifies that the core argument is whether HTTP should be employed as a transfer protocol. Wjburnett (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Naming
If the name SOAP was dropped as of version 1.2, then what is the name now? The article leaves this question hanging. Every mention refers to it as SOAP, so apparently the name stuck. Boteman (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Example message

 * Are you kind to put a xml-tag-on-display to diff htm-code in the formatted boxlet?188.25.49.130 (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * is the tag lost the battle of title head ; havn`t notxxxd by 3/jan/2011.wikilord
 * I`m out

SOAP is agnostic of transport protocol, so it's quite a bit tilted to refer to this aspect as "ignorance of...HTTP."
Under consideration is this statement from the Disadvantages section: "Most uses of HTTP as a transport protocol are done in ignorance of how the operation would be modeled in HTTP" SOAP is transport protocol agnostic, a fact that is situationally beneficial or detrimental. An equivalent argument would be that REST is detrimental because it does not communicate over SMTP. Both of these arguments are opinion at best when included on the main pages (of SOAP or REST). Readers will be better served by each of these arguments being included in a side-by-side comparison and excluded from the main definition pages. Wjburnett (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate support of a standard by languages or frameworks is not a reflection on the standard itself.
Under consideration is the paragraph beginning with this statement in the Disadvantages section: "Although SOAP is an open standard, not all languages offer appropriate support." This paragraph should be removed from the SOAP article because:
 * 1) The factuality of the statement is questionable, and increasingly so as the standard is supported.
 * 2) Although the lack of support of a standard in programming languages or frameworks may influence the utilization of a standard, such lack of support does not reflect negatively on the standard itself.
 * you`re absolite

Wjburnett (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

example applications
What are example applications of SOAP used in the wild? Which (popular) websites/webservices use it? Thanks, --Abdull (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How fast you want it because it seems meer a joke compared to xml ?LOL By the way which f you say is binary fastest (tcp::ip, ::udp s.o.a.p. or maybe dchub)`?

--wl

SOAP is no longer an acronym
SOAP is no longer an acronym for Simple Object Access Protocol. I have added the quote that supports this in the reference to SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework (Second Edition). Also this link gives some background to the decision. SchreyP (messages) 04:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

SOAPAction
I'm no SOAP expert but I'd bet a week's pay that the SOAPAction field shown in the example is wrong. For most SOAP 1.2 applications I would expect that field to be blank (eg. SOAPAction: "") but for most SOAP 1.1 applications it is normal to include the name of the method you are trying to fire (eg. SOAPAction: "GetStockPrice"). Comments please? Neilrieck (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Why use SOAP at all?
I find it frustrating that no-one has been able to explain to me what is the value-add of SOAP over JSON/plain XML. The only 2 advantages apply equally to plain XML and JSON. I was hoping this article would explain a bit better why anyone uses SOAP. I managed to glean the following single sentence from a 2-page StackOverflow answer: SOAP can make use of any transport protocol not just HTTP(S), SOAP offers more options when security is concerned, SOAP offers reliable messaging etc etc.  What are those "options where security is concerned"? What do they mean by "reliable messaging" (over and above the features of Tcp/Ip which re-sends packets over and over if they are not being received, and ensures they arrive in the correct sequence with no errors?) What's the "etc, etc"? And who would want to use SOAP over SMTP/who would consider this an advantage?

Can someone please enhance this page to explain all this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcotco (talk • contribs) 06:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Meme
What's the point of this Pop-culture Meme? OMG What does wikipedia have against soap?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.87.108 (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"Comparison to JSON/XML" section
The "Comparison to JSON/XML" section is full of non-sense and reads like an advert. JSON and XML are standards describing ways to represent structured data in text and SOAP is a protocol for transferring data, they're not directly comparable at all. For those reasons I removed the section. holizz (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

HTTP, SMTP and JMS are not transport protocols!
Seen at the characteristics section:

I suppose it means TCP/IP transport protocols:

"neutrality (SOAP can operate over any transport protocol such as HTTP, SMTP, TCP, UDP, or JMS)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojorero (talk • contribs) 16:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

SOAP is not 100% XML compliant
XML namespaces only apply to element tags and attribute names. In SOAP they apply to an element value and an attribute value as well. And no one knows, why. Maybe the developers didn't read the XML specification.

(from http://effbot.org/zone/elementsoap-3.htm).

Another example:

This is the reason, why pure XML tools do not fully understand SOAP messages. --Wiki lofi (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on SOAP. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://davenet.userland.com/1998/07/14/xmlRpcForNewbies

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)