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

RE: HTTP binding options

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 17:05:52 -0800
Message-ID: <DDE1793D7266AD488BB4F5E8D38EACB803C38EC9@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Roberto, I don't quite understand your suggestion below. Can you
elaborate?

--Jeff

> From: Roberto Chinnici
> > Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> > 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
> 
> I think I'd prefer doing (3) with a slight change, i.e. that we also
> support the PUT/POST analog of "GET binding for operations with
> MEP=in-out and with no input body". This amounts to a "POST binding
for
> operations with MEP=in-out and with no output body". PUT would work as
> well, as long as there are no faults.
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2003 20:06:06 GMT

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