Attachments v URI

["Reynolds, Peter" <Peter.Reynolds@bowneglobal.ie>]

Hi all,

 

I am in favour of being able to use SOAP attachments for the Web service. I recognise the reasons which Stephen has mentioned in favour of URIs as being very valid but I think there are a couple of reasons why we should do both or SOAP attachments. The ideal from my perspective would be to do both.

 

With SOAP attachment we have a single call which submits the job or gets a quote and this also sends the file. With URI there may have to be an extra step where the file is placed at some address. This in my mind also lends itself to easier automation, but this might just be that the step of leaving a file to be accessed is eliminated.

 

There is a security issue in having a file somewhere on the Internet for collection. The FTP/ URI solution makes a lot of sense particularly with bigger files. However, our experience in using Web services at BGS is that the projects we were getting consisted of lots of small files rather than a small number of big ones.

 

The other argument I would like to make is that I feel customers would have more confidence in the SOAP attachment solution.

 

Thanks,

 

Peter.

 

Peter Reynolds, Software Development Manager
Bowne Global Solutions
3, West Pier Business Campus, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin, Ireland
Tel: +353-1-202-1280
Fax: +353-1- 202-1299
Peter.Reynolds@bowneglobal.ie
Web Site: http//www.bowneglobal.com
http://elcano.bowneglobal.com/