W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > December 2002

Re: WSD Requirements: add a requirement about safe and idempotent characteristics

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 17:31:59 +0100
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20021203163159.GB4429@w3.org>

Hi Ugo and Mark (and all).

* Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> [2002-11-26 11:26-0800]
> >If it were resolved
> >such that HTTP methods, including GET, were given their rightful status
> >as WSDL operations, then that's all a developer has to know, and they
> >can write software that uses GET as it's defined in RFC 2616; any "safe"
> >or "idempotent" flag would be superfluous.
> 
> I have the impression that Hugo wanted to also address cases where POST is used instead of GET (because, for example, headers are to be specified), but still the operation is idempotent. So just looking at the method would not sufficient to tell whether the operation is idempotent or not.

Well, almost. I was not advocating for misusing HTTP POST though, nor
legitimating it.

What I had in mind was to give a description of the idempotency,
safeness, HTTP method equivalence at the abstract level, i.e.
idenpendently from the binding.

Basically, a portType could be bound several different ways. Adding
this information could help choose the right binding(s).

* Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> [2002-11-26 14:13-0500]
> I think that WSD issue #64[1] covers your concern.  If it were resolved
> such that HTTP methods, including GET, were given their rightful status
> as WSDL operations, then that's all a developer has to know, and they
> can write software that uses GET as it's defined in RFC 2616; any "safe"
> or "idempotent" flag would be superfluous.

I don't think that it covers what I had in mind because it is tied to
the HTTP binding. OTOH, HTTP method equivalence is definitely closer
to HTTP than any other protocol, but I was trying to do something
general.

Regards,

Hugo

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2002 11:32:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:10 GMT