- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 08:02:47 -0500
- To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>, "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
On Feb 14, 2004, at 11:11 PM, David Orchard wrote: > Safety hits the 80/20 mark for a few things: > - Can a client use a "safe" method as a poor man's ping? "getStatus" > is a > great example of this. [snip] Isn't a great example of why you *wouldn't* mark your getStatus safe? Just because it's safe doesn't mean I want it to get hammered by a bot, for example. Shall we include the robots inclusion protocol? (actually that would be a *terrific* extension) Some other examples given at the F2F were selecting alternative (e.g., GET) bindings and (client) caching. Safety probably isn't sufficient for either (as you certainly need expiry information as well in the protocol). It would be interesting to have a WSDL checker flag operations *not* marked as safe which had GET bindings. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Sunday, 15 February 2004 08:02:47 UTC