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

Re: HTTP binding options

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:29:53 -0500
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: "'Web Services Description'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20031110152953.Q27293@www.markbaker.ca>

Ok, but I'm confident that we disagree on what "good URI support" is,
and how best to "leverage HTTP".  I think they mean a subset of REST's
constraints; identification of resources, hypermedia as engine of
application state, and uniform interface.  I expect many would
disagree with that.

Qualifier; I'm not trying to *restrict* WSDL to only supporting
RESTful services.  I'm just trying to ensure that it can be used to
describe RESTful services.  That means we need to ensure that WSDL
itself doesn't violate any of REST's constraints as they relate to
service description.  Currently, WSDL 2.0 violates one
(self-description, viz a viz the recent "ambiguity" issue I raised).
WSDL 1.1 violates all of those constraints above with its GET binding
and its "operation" semantics.

Oh, and I'm not saying that HTTP can't be leveraged in a less RESTful
way by other forms of services (e.g. SOA).  I should probably have made
that clear earlier.

Mark.

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 11:11:27AM -0800, David Orchard wrote:
> +1 to the last sentence.  Though I'm not quite sure what "enabling the web
> architecture" really means "which portion of the web architecture documented
> by the TAG is precluded by various options" but let's not go there.  Suffice
> that good URI support and leveraging HTTP are good requirements.
> 
> Dave
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of Philippe Le Hegaret
> > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 10:59 AM
> > To: Mark Baker
> > Cc: Web Services Description
> > Subject: Re: HTTP binding options
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 13:47, Mark Baker wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 09:51:11AM -0500, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> > > > My concern here has nothing to do with REST, but with
> > HTTP. We should
> > > > take advantage of its functionalities.
> > >
> > > FWIW, REST, or at least an important part of it, is a guide
> > to how to
> > > take *full* advantage of HTTP.  So if, as you say, your
> > concern is with
> > > HTTP, then it should also be with REST.
> >
> > Enabling the Web architecture in WSDL should be the primary goal. True
> > enough, an important part of the REST architecture has been
> > baked in the
> > Web Architecture, but reducing the debate of the HTTP binding around
> > REST is misleading. WSDL and SOAP must be able to use the URI
> > space, and
> > take advantage of the HTTP protocol.
> >
> > Philippe
> >
> >
> >

-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Monday, 10 November 2003 15:28:10 GMT

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