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

Re: http binding

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:21:10 +0600
Message-ID: <0da101c39e0e$c7a86ae0$36356a20@lankabook2>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

We cannot bar it; its just a URL. We can support it (if we choose
to) using the URL rewriting stuff. I forget the details of what
was in WSDL 1.1 right now to remember what was supported. The
ability to construct (or append to) the URL is a powerful feature,
even though it could be abused.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
To: <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 5:07 PM
Subject: RE: http binding


> I recently saw a SOAP/HTTP service which used a query string in the URL to
provide routing and security parameters and POST to exchange SOAP documents
>
> - should WSDL allow, bar or ignore this combination of GET and POST ?
>
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> Sent: 29 October 2003 11:05
> To: Jean-Jacques Moreau
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: http binding
>
>
>
> I think the removal of <message> offers interesting possibilities
> for a "direct" HTTP POST binding. I'd like to explore that.
>
> I'd like to define an HTTP GET binding for RPC style operations.
>
> Finally, we need to sort out the SOAP Response MEP stuff.
>
> So maybe there isn't much difference, but we need to get it all
> done. I don't expect there will be a MIME binding at all, but to
> be honest have not thought about how MTOM bindings may work.
>
> Bye,
>
> Sanjiva.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
> To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
> Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 4:21 PM
> Subject: Re: http binding
>
>
> > How different would that be from the text that went in last time (apart
> > from component model issues)?
> >
> > JJ.
> >
> > Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> >
> > > I'd like to see us make some progress on the HTTP bindings too.
> > > I've been thinking about this for a while, even though I haven't
> > > put anything down on paper yet. However, I do have 20 hrs of
> > > sitting in planes to do just that.
> > >
> > > Can we get some time to discuss it at the F2F? I don't think
> > > there'll be enough to make decisions, but I'd like to get
> > > people thinking on how we may want to evolve the HTTP stuff.
> > >
> > > Philippe, I know you've had a long standing action item on
> > > this .. I'm not trying to take that over (sorry for appearing
> > > to do so though, especially without asking), but I would like
> > > to make progress on it. If you have anything that you can send
> > > with your thoughts on it (before Saturday night my time - Sat
> > > AM yours) then I can go thru that too while writing down what
> > > I have in mind.
> > >
> > > Sanjiva.
> > >
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 06:19:29 GMT

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