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

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

From: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:13:53 -0800
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000701c295b2$42b2da10$6401a8c0@us.oracle.com>

That's fair enough, though my main point is that it's the implementation
that decides if there is to be side effects or not (even if the caller
is not accountable) and hence I don't see the need for the annotation on
the wsdl.

Martin.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark Baker
> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 3:49 PM
> To: Martin Chapman
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WSD Requirements: add a requirement about safe 
> and idempotent characteristics
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 03:14:37PM -0800, Martin Chapman wrote:
> > Now I'm not saying whether it's good or bad to have side 
> effects on a 
> > get, but nobody can dictate what people want their 
> applications to do.
> 
> I'll have to defer to RFC 2616 on this;
> 
>   "Naturally, it is not possible to ensure that the server does not
>    generate side-effects as a result of performing a GET request; in
>    fact, some dynamic resources consider that a feature. The important
>    distinction here is that the user did not request the side-effects,
>    so therefore cannot be held accountable for them."
>     - RFC 2616, section 9.1.1
> 
> MB
> -- 
> Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.   http://www.markbaker.ca
> 
>    Will distribute objects for food
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2002 20:15:09 GMT

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