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

RE: HTTP binding options

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:56:37 -0800
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <022201c3a947$d54e5a80$6401a8c0@beasys.com>

I'm strongly in favour of option 5.  I really don't see how we could
seriously call this a "Web" service description language if there's no
support for describing URLs.  We see a significant number of customers
wanting to have better integration between URL parts and message parts in
WSDL.  Y'all know how much I have argued against certain zealotry so I don't
say this from that pov.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 8:57 AM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: HTTP binding options
>
>
>
> 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 Wednesday, 12 November 2003 13:09:36 GMT

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