Re: Make p:http-request required?

On 5/9/07, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/7/07, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Alex Milowski wrote:
> > > On 4/30/07, *Norman Walsh* <ndw@nwalsh.com <mailto:ndw@nwalsh.com>>
> > wrote:
> > >     I propose that we move [p:http-request] to the "required" pile.
> > >
> > > + 1 to that!!!
> >
> > Are there any security considerations that we need to worry about?
> >
> > I don't really understand how p:http-request works (as in the 30th April
> > draft). It doesn't seem to be a standard atomic step, since it has
> > attributes that correspond to options. Shouldn't its signature be more
> > like:
> >
> > <p:declare-step type="p:http-request">
> >    <p:input port="request-entity" sequence="no"/>
> >    <p:output port="response-status" sequence="no" />
> >    <p:output port="response-headers" sequence="no"/>
> >    <p:output port="response-entity" sequence="no" />
> >    <p:option name="href" required="yes" />
> >    <p:option name="method" required="no" value="GET" />
> >    <p:option name="http-version" required="no" value=" 1.1" />
> >    <p:param name="*" />
> > </p:declare-step>
>
>
>
> I'm going to come back to this  definition as I'm not sure
> I'm being clear.
>
> In the above step declaration, we're missing headers as an input.  I
> presume
> we'd use parameters to set the headers.
>


BTW, I'm not against using parameters to set headers on this step.  I think
that would be a fine addition that would add some flexibility.  But, if we
did that, we'd need to know which parameters in the context you'd
want as headers.  As such, import-parameters comes back to haunt
us again...



-- 
--Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
considered."

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics