W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > May 2003

RE: TAG updates "When to use GET" document

From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 16:07:36 -0400
To: "Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>, "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ECEDLFLFGIEENIPIEJJPEEPMEDAA.anne@manes.net>

I think that if we attempt to impose a requirement to refactor or retrofit
existing programs, the world at large is likely to view the requirement as
specious and unnecessary, which will cast doubt on all WS-Arch work.

Anne

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Newcomer, Eric
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 12:58 PM
> To: Hugo Haas; Champion, Mike
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: TAG updates "When to use GET" document
>
>
>
> The trouble seems to be within the definition of operations,
> which in the Web services world tends to be methods or programs,
> some of which may already exist.  Would this imply a requirement
> to refactor or retrofit existing programs in order to participate
> in a Web services environment?
>
> Eric
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugo Haas [mailto:hugo@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 4:43 AM
> To: Champion, Mike
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: TAG updates "When to use GET" document
>
>
>
> * Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com> [2003-05-10
> 21:44-0400]
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet.html
> >
> > This is somewhat relevant to WSA (I believe it was Roger's comments that
> > stimulated the revision), but there are only three sentences on
> Web services
> > specifically:
> >
> > "6 Ongoing work on GET in Web Services
> > Since the first publication of this finding, W3C's XML Protocol Working
> > Group has added a GET method to SOAP 1.2 (cf. section 4.1.2 of
> > [SOAPADJUNCTS].
> > Section 3 of WSDL 1.2 Bindings [WSDL] provides a binding to
> HTTP GET, which
> > makes it possible to respect the principle of using GET for
> safe operations.
> > However, to represent safety in a more straightforward manner,
> it should be
> > a property of operations themselves, not just a feature of bindings."
> >
> > Anyone have thoughts on the implications of this document for the WSA
> > document, if any?  Anything we want to push back on?
>
> Since this has been the source of a lot of debates, we should address
> this question in our document and refer to the TAG finding IMO. This
> could go into section 3.1.
>
> --
> Hugo Haas - W3C
> mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 16:08:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:19 GMT