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

Re: [Pub-Sub-Task] Web-friendly pub/sub

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 10:48:58 -0500
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <20021101104858.D24318@www.markbaker.ca>

Hi Sanjiva,

On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 04:13:52PM +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> I like the RESTified version - simple. 


> >From a WSDL point of view, that's just a binding. So whatever
> the abstract syntax we agree on, we could define a RESTified 
> HTTP binding using the MONITOR method as you did quite easily.

How so?  How could you define a binding to an application method like
MONITOR?  I thought bindings were supposed to be protocol independant.

Actually, it wasn't my intention to get into this here and now, but
I disagree that it's a binding.

> The discussion we're having now is above binding details - its
> more about how to tell someone that a service has something
> it can notify others about (i.e., an event it can generate).

FWIW, we use OPTIONS for this.  If you invoke the OPTIONS method on a
URI and the Allow response header includes "MONITOR" then you know you
can monitor that resource for event notifications.

Side bar; hmm, I wonder if OPTIONS wouldn't be a better method to return
WSDL than GET?

> Everything in your example fits nicely under the approach I
> proposed - you have a notification service reference (the
> reply to header) plus subscription data which seems to indicate
> what info the subscriber is interested in. 


Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.
http://www.markbaker.ca             http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 10:46:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:40 UTC