W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > July 2007

Re: New Step: p:http-get

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 07:58:01 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <87hco9zvee.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> was heard to say:
| Rather than change p:http-request to have multiple modes of operating, I think
| we can simplify by specializing a step to just HTTP get requests:
| <p:declare-step type="p:http-get">

I'm not thrilled about the name, but p:get seems worse and that's the
only thing I can think of.

|   <p:input port="source"/>

What's the input?

|   <p:output port="result"/>
|   <p:option name="href" required="yes"/>
|   <p:option name="username"/>
|   <p:option name="password"/>
|   <p:option name="auth-method"/>
|   <p:option name="send-authorization"/>
| </p:declare-step>
| The 'href' option specifies the URL to perform a GET request against.
| The 'username' etc. options control authentication just as for p:http-request.
| The result would be handled as follows:
| 1. If the result has an XML media type, the content is parsed and produced
|    on the 'result' output port.
| 2. For non-XML media types, a c:body element is generated just as specified
|    for p:http-request.

I'm really uneasy about having p:http-request and p:http-get. It seems
to me that either:

* The get functionality should be an option of p:http-request. Or maybe it
  should be the default behavior and the more robust behavior should be an
  option, or

* The get functionality should be an option of p:load.

Having p:http-get, p:http-request, p:load, and p:document is surely at
least one too many.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The first step towards madness is to
http://nwalsh.com/            | think oneself wise.--Fernando De Rojas

Received on Thursday, 12 July 2007 11:58:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:43 UTC