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 10:24:35 -0800
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <023a01c3a94a$3a3239b0$6401a8c0@beasys.com>
I think I am saying that is a feature not a bug.  In the case of a banking
customer I was talking to, they want the transaction # in the URL.

Does this mess things up in the "infoset uber alles" approach?  

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Jeffrey Schlimmer
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 10:17 AM
> To: David Orchard; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: HTTP binding options
> 
> 
> 
> David, how do you feel about having only part of the GED indicated by
> /definitions/interface/operation/{input,output}/@message be serialized
> in /Envelope/Body/* ?
> 
> --Jeff
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of David Orchard
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 9:57 AM
> > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: HTTP binding options
> > 
> > 
> > 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 13:26:28 GMT

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