W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-resource-access@w3.org > February 2009

[Bug 6533] Safeness of operations

From: Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:35:51 -0800
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
CC: "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5AAAA6322448AA41840FC4563A30D6E8427CB3EBEB@NA-EXMSG-C122.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

This is an good suggestion Yves.

I acknowledge that the intent of the spec is that the Transfer Get operation is idempotent and safe, and the Put and Delete operations are idempotent.  It makes sense to state these explicitly using the definitions and practical considerations as outlined in RFC 2616.

This appears to be another example of how the Transfer operations are aligned with HTTP verbs.

Yves, are you going to prepare a concrete proposal?

--Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-resource-access-notifications-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-notifications-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 1:52 AM
To: public-ws-resource-access-notifications@w3.org
Subject: [Bug 6533] New: Safeness of operations


http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6533

           Summary: Safeness of operations
           Product: WS-Resource Access
           Version: FPWD
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Transfer
        AssignedTo: public-ws-resource-access-notifications@w3.org
        ReportedBy: ylafon@w3.org


WS-Transfer does not define the 'safe' or 'idempotent' properties of the
"verbs".
Whils in HTTP is it safe to reissue a GET or a HEAD as no side effects are
expected, WS-T doesn't say a word about reissuing a WS-T GET when something
happens (like at the underlying transport level).


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 23:36:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:17:45 GMT