W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > November 2003

HTTP binding options

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 22:57:11 +0600
Message-ID: <024301c3a487$104fa0a0$ebc16720@lankabook2>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

The "HTTP binding table" at the post-meeting lunch came up
with the following possible options for the HTTP binding:

option 1:
    drop HTTP binding completely

option 2:
    define a POST binding only with the natural binding possible:
    input becomes POST body and output must be POST response

option 3:
    define option 2 +
    define GET binding for operations with MEP=in-out and with no
    input body (i.e., GET goes to http:address URL) and the output
    must be the GET response

option 4:
    define option 3 + 
    define GET binding for operations with MEP=in-out and @style=rpc
    ala the WSDL 1.1 binding, but with rules to move all parameters 
    into query parameters. (That is, no URL rewriting ala WSDL 1.1.)

option 5:
    define option 4 +
    add URL replacement to allow different parts to go in the URL
    itself vs. as query params

There was pretty strong sentiment against doing (5). (4) has the
negative that the value of operation/@style is bleeding into the
binding - which would be unfortunate. (3) is interesting and can
be generalized a bit for other MEPs if needed. An interesting twist
on (3) could be to allow appending a relative URL to the adresss
on a per-operation  basis. That's not without price (inconsistent
use of xml:base for relative URLs for one).

My current preference is that we do option (2).

Sanjiva.
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2003 11:55:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:27 GMT